[tcpm] Re: feedback on draft-touch-tcp-portnames-00
Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Thu, 13 July 2006 19:45 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G177X-0004JN-Uu; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:45:11 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G177W-0004JI-Ly for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:45:10 -0400
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G177U-0003Pm-94 for tcpm@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:45:10 -0400
Received: from [132.219.18.179] (h12b3-net84db.lab.risq.net [132.219.18.179] (may be forged)) by vapor.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id k6DJi4H27370; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <44B6A274.30606@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:43:48 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sally Floyd <floyd@icir.org>
References: <200607131934.k6DJYMia000337@cougar.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <200607131934.k6DJYMia000337@cougar.icir.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org, Mark Handley <mjh@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: [tcpm] Re: feedback on draft-touch-tcp-portnames-00
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0860815714=="
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Agreed - that was raised on the list already, and has been pending for the next revision. Joe Sally Floyd wrote: > Joe - > > I think it would be good to add an explicit section in your draft > about Service Codes in DCCP, along with a discussion of why service > codes should or should not be used differently in TCP and DCCP, a > comparison of the two approaches, etc. Mark Handley would be a > good person to ask about the proposed use of service codes in DCCP. > > - Sally > http://www.icir.org/floyd/ > >>From RFC 4340, the main DCCP RFC: > > Service Code: 32 bits > Describes the application-level service to which the client application > wants to connect. Service Codes are intended to provide information > about which application protocol a connection intends to use, thus > aiding middleboxes and reducing reliance on globally well-known > ports. See Section 8.1.2."
_______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm