Re: [dccp] wildcard service code?

[Andrea Bittau <a.bittau at cs.ucl.ac.uk>]

> I think we had better avoid mandatory use of setsockopt if it's possible and
> a wildcard service code may be uselful in some situations. 

I totally agree.  I wanted to raise this issue at some point.  The application
shouldn't require to setsockopt(), but rather a "default / meaningless" service
code should be allocated as you suggest.  This will making porting of
applications to DCCP trivial.  Literally a #define SOCK_STREAM SOCK_DCCP style
of thing.

Also, I am sure many applications don't even care about the service code, and a
wildcard/default is better than a random or existing code.