Hi All, OK, I'll accept the apparent consensus and make the DCCP header the same format in both encapsulations. Note that a DCCP implementation is still going to need to know whether this came in with UDP encap or STD encap -- the checksum processing needs to be different at least.
Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: Colin Perkins [mailto:c...@csperkins.org] > Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:55 AM > To: Phelan, Tom > Cc: Pasi Sarolahti; DCCP working group > Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt > > On 7 Apr 2010, at 15:14, Phelan, Tom wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Pasi Sarolahti [mailto:pasi.sarola...@iki.fi] > >> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 5:54 PM > >> To: DCCP working group > >> Cc: Phelan, Tom > >> Subject: Fwd: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt > ... > >> * worth considering a straight UDP encapsulation that does not adjust > >> the position and order of the fields. > >> -- Gorry / 2009-11-20 > >> > > [Tom P.] Worth considering, but since there are already two > > implementations of the existing encapsulation I'm going to resist > > this. > > > We're early enough in the life of DCCP that I'd prefer we get this > right, than preserve running code that has minimal deployment. > > -- > Colin Perkins > http://csperkins.org/ > >
