> > Given that state of the discussion, I propose that we > actually require > > each implementation that talks to a transport MUST support the > > to-be-written UDP transport mapping. > > I disagree with this on principle. This "that talks to a transport" > crappy-little-rule is being done to accommodate a vendor-specific > implementation issue. It has nothing to do with the > on-the-wire standard > we are developing. It has no place in the standard.
Good point. Do you agree on: Given that state of the discussion, I propose that we require each implementation MUST support the to-be-written UDP transport mapping. Everybody is free to use the format when not talking to someone else. After all, this is not really of our protocol business. Thanks for keeping my on-track :) Rainer
