[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <482AF1DB.1060608@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 07:06:19 -0700
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To: Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
R?mi Denis-Courmont <rdenis@...phalempin.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [DCCP]: Deprecate SOCK_DCCP in favour of SOCK_DGRAM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gerrit Renker wrote:
> RFC 3493 says that 0 for socktype/protocol means that caller will accept
> any socket type / protocol, so presumably this does include DCCP and UDP-Lite.
I know what the RFC says. But there are a gazillion of protocols out
there and I won't create a record for all of them in case socktype and
protocol are zero. That's just overkill in 99.9% of all cases.
I assumption is that UDPlite is just too specialized to be useful to a
wide array of people. Yes, it case be supported if explicitly requested
but should be returned if 0/0 is passed in.
What I'm asking is whether this is a fair assumption and what the story
of DCCP is.
- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIKvHb2ijCOnn/RHQRAlz5AKCvOSOm7PR7ljfyZ9krq0TtzZUTbgCdFLLj
F1fvWvR+VvXUSE5x+VtgsqQ=
=3Lft
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists