From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Bittau Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:48:41 +0000 Subject: Re: Proposed socket API change Message-Id: <20060908094841.GA12047@shorty.sorbonet.org> List-Id: References: <200609081031.41701@strip-the-willow> In-Reply-To: <200609081031.41701@strip-the-willow> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dccp@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:31:41AM +0100, gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: > Suggested Change: If user doesn't want to set a service code, that's fine, > leave the service code associated with connection at 0. I totally agree with you on this, but I have been killed when suggesting this on dccp@itef.org. > Justification: > In a forthcoming communication to SIGCOMM-06, the inventors of DCCP say that > they were "motivated by keeping the basic API as simple as UDP's" and that > "DCCP should provide applications with an API as simple as that of UDP". I think the same authors killed me on this point. I believe their motivation is "we want service codes to be used" and that they are a useful thing. I agree with them, but I don't agree on "forcing the users to use service codes". In practice, I think the situation will end up just as you described: programmers will say "what is a service code?" and all weird things will start emerging by people setting random codes just to get their application working. Indeed, question 1 of Linux's DCCP FAQ will end up being: "connect() returns error HELP! Did you set a SC?". Most of the initial DCCP applications will be test apps anyway, and I think the burden of "inventing" a service code or assigning one should be avoided.