Re: [dccp] New draft :draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-01.txt

[Gorry Fairhurst <gorry at erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

Phelan, Tom wrote:
> Hi Eddie,
>
> One question on your comments:
>  
> > 3
> >
> > => "This section explicitly updates RFC 4340 as follows:
> >
> >     "A DCCP implementation MUST allow multiple applications using
> >     different DCCP service codes to listen on the same server port.
> >
> >     A DCCP implementation SHOULD provide a method that informs a
> server
> >     of the Service Code value that was selected by an active
> connection."
> > "
> > ==> I disagree with the first requirement, the MUST.  That is too
> harsh
> > and I
> > see no need for it.  I like the second requirement.

I shall write this is a SHOULD -  because we are unable to write a MUST 
 an absolute requirement for interoperability. In fact, implementors 
need to do this for the SC mechanism to offer the real advantages in 
port numbering that we envisage.

> [Tom P.] I couldn't track what Gorry and you agreed to on this in the
> subsequent trail -- I assume you'd like that first requirement to be a
> SHOULD instead of a MUST.  I think that's OK but I'd object to making it
> a MAY or removing it.
That was my mistake too :-(

> Tom P.