From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?q?R=C3=A9mi_Denis-Courmont?= Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 17:47:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] [DCCP]: Deprecate SOCK_DCCP in favour of SOCK_DGRAM Message-Id: <200805142047.40726.rdenis@simphalempin.com> List-Id: References: <20080513072853.GB4514@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <20080513072853.GB4514@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: dccp@vger.kernel.org Le Tuesday 13 May 2008 22:14:07 Ulrich Drepper, vous avez écrit : > Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > > In any case, getaddrinfo() should be patched to > > [...] > > What should be the behavior is socktype and protocol are zero? Should > these two types be returned by default? What others? So far we return > TCP, UDP, and raw socket information. I'd rather keep the list short > but since we already have raw sockets in there (because they are in > POSIX) I won't reject anything that's more useful than raw sockets. Well... I've always wondered what the use of both zeroes was supposed to be. In AI_PASSIVE mode, it makes no sense, since there is no way you can handle passive SOCK_STREAM sockets (bind+listen+accept) and "passive" SOCK_DGRAM sockets in any common way (bind+recvfrom+sendto). Even in active mode (connect+send), I cannot figure out how to share SOCK_STREAM code with SOCK_DGRAM code, given the incompatible end-of-file and datagram boundaries semantics (or lack thereof). Hence, it seems that both zeroes is only of use to enumerate the supported protocol (yeah right...). If that's so adding DCCP and even UDP-Lite would be OK, even though they are corner-case protocols. Do you intend to implement "dccp" when parsing /etc/services, though? Frankly, I have no definite answer, and I'm not any kind of standard body to make one in the first place :P -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?q?R=C3=A9mi_Denis-Courmont?= Subject: Re: [RFC] [DCCP]: Deprecate SOCK_DCCP in favour of SOCK_DGRAM Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 20:47:40 +0300 Message-ID: <200805142047.40726.rdenis@simphalempin.com> References: <20080513093718.GA24185@gerrit.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <200805132037.39580.rdenis@simphalempin.com> <4829E87F.1070006@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Gerrit Renker , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , David Stevens , David Miller , dccp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ulrich Drepper Return-path: Received: from yop.chewa.net ([91.121.105.214]:39434 "EHLO yop.chewa.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752424AbYENRrn convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 13:47:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4829E87F.1070006@redhat.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le Tuesday 13 May 2008 22:14:07 Ulrich Drepper, vous avez =C3=A9crit=C2= =A0: > R=C3=A9mi Denis-Courmont wrote: > > In any case, getaddrinfo() should be patched to > > [...] > > What should be the behavior is socktype and protocol are zero? Shoul= d > these two types be returned by default? What others? So far we retu= rn > TCP, UDP, and raw socket information. I'd rather keep the list short > but since we already have raw sockets in there (because they are in > POSIX) I won't reject anything that's more useful than raw sockets. Well... I've always wondered what the use of both zeroes was supposed t= o be. In AI_PASSIVE mode, it makes no sense, since there is no way you can ha= ndle=20 passive SOCK_STREAM sockets (bind+listen+accept) and "passive" SOCK_DGR= AM=20 sockets in any common way (bind+recvfrom+sendto). Even in active mode (connect+send), I cannot figure out how to share=20 SOCK_STREAM code with SOCK_DGRAM code, given the incompatible end-of-fi= le and=20 datagram boundaries semantics (or lack thereof). Hence, it seems that both zeroes is only of use to enumerate the suppor= ted=20 protocol (yeah right...). If that's so adding DCCP and even UDP-Lite wo= uld be=20 OK, even though they are corner-case protocols. Do you intend to=20 implement "dccp" when parsing /etc/services, though? =46rankly, I have no definite answer, and I'm not any kind of standard = body to=20 make one in the first place :P --=20 R=C3=A9mi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/