DCCP protocol discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eddie Kohler <kohler@cs.ucla.edu>
To: dccp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Proposed socket API change
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 06:07:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4503AB86.3090208@cs.ucla.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200609081031.41701@strip-the-willow>

Last time, vger ate this reply as possible spam, trying again.


Well, here's what I think about service codes.  I think I speak for the 
authors here.  This has all been said previously on the list FWIW.


* I think service codes should be part of the sockaddr for DCCP.  The decision 
to make them a setsockopt() I think has made things harder.  From 9/9/05:

 > I agree with Arnaldo et al. here.  The Service Code should be considered 
similar to a port.  It is best to specify it at bind() time, rather than 
separately.  The structure names may want some updating; sockaddr_in_dccp and 
sockaddr_in6_dccp, rather than sockaddr_dccp, for example.  The servicecode 
member should finish off the structure, so that sockaddr_in is a prefix of 
sockaddr_in_dccp.  And the code should be smart enough to supply a 0 service 
code if the sa_len corresponds to sockaddr_in instead of sockaddr_in_dccp.


* I am fine with the default service code being 0.  11/23/05:

 > Again, there's always Service Code 0, which "represents the absence of a 
meaningful Service Code".  This should be the default, if you desperately want 
a default.


* I am NOT fine, and have never been fine, with 0 acting as a *wildcard* in 
any way.  Service code 0 acts like a specific service code in every way: if a 
Request with Service Code 1 arrived at a listening socket with Service Code 0, 
then the Request would be rejected with Bad Service Code.  Likewise, if a 
Request with SC 0 arrived at a listening socket with SC 1, the Request would 
be rejected with Bad Service Code.


So to summarize, a default SC of 0 is fine, for either listening or active 
sockets, although we still think people should use real service codes.  If the 
following comment suggests woildcarding, then that's not fine.

 > So as to not compromise listening sockets, I was thinking of treating an 
`uninitialized' 0 on a server socket different from a service code = 0 which 
has been explicitly set by the application.



Eddie

  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-09-10  6:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-09-08  9:31 Proposed socket API change gerrit
2006-09-08  9:48 ` Andrea Bittau
2006-09-08 10:49 ` gerrit
2006-09-08 18:08 ` Ian McDonald
2006-09-10  5:23 ` Eddie Kohler
2006-09-10  6:07 ` Eddie Kohler [this message]
2006-09-11 13:30 ` Gerrit Renker
2006-09-11 14:17 ` Gerrit Renker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4503AB86.3090208@cs.ucla.edu \
    --to=kohler@cs.ucla.edu \
    --cc=dccp@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox