  The formalization of process algebras usually starts with a minimal core of
operators and rules for its transition system, and then relax the system to
improve its usability and ease the proofs. In the calculus of communicating
systems (CCS), the structural congruence plays this role by making e.g.
parallel composition commutative and associative: without it, the system would
be cumbersome to use and reason about, and it can be proven that this change is
innocuous in a precise technical sense. For the two reversible calculi
extending CCS, the situation is less clear: CCS with Communication Keys (CCSK)
was first defined without any structural congruence, and then was endowed with
a fragment of CCS's congruence. Reversible CCS (RCCS) made the choice of
"backing in" the structural equivalence, that became part of the "minimal core"
of the system. In this short oral communication, we would like to re-consider
the status and role of the structural congruence in general, to question its
role in RCCS in particular, and to ask the more general question of the
structural equivalences legitimacy.
