What is a "direct" socket in this context? If it's something that gives me a restricted packet socket context from a user space context then sure, call it what you'd like as long as it does that. If it's not that then I'm not sure it really helps. E.g. my last problem was with implementing 802.1Qcj draft extensions in a cross platform daemon, so some predefined concept about how to send/receive anything more than that EtherType with custom payloads doesn't really help (particularly if it lets other things bind to that EtherType at the same time, as LLDP is a "what the last packet said" protocol).

It's a similar story in the ARP use case you mention when maybe you want to e.g. anonymously probe if a VIP is actively in use by using a 0.0.0.0 source (useful for redundant responder setups). DHCP and ICMP I could see the case for similar improvements to the RAW IP sockets (AF_INET in Linux) type as packet sockets (e.g. ability to request and permit limited scope sockets or the other enhancements mentioned above). Just that is still too limited though as the world has more than IP protocols, e.g. AF_INET gets you OSPF but not ISIS.

The idea that "no, you can't possibly mean you'd like to send Ethernet packets while still caring about what the rest of the OS network stack is doing as if you mean to just extend it instead of take its place" is precisely the issue I've found myself annoyed with. No, I don't want to use DPDK to make a custom IP forwarding stack, I just want to be registered as the app to send and receive a certain EtherType without saying I want full rights to all packets.