From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulrich Drepper Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 14:06:19 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] [DCCP]: Deprecate SOCK_DCCP in favour of SOCK_DGRAM Message-Id: <482AF1DB.1060608@redhat.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 -----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-----