Hello,
One of the DCCP charis asked me to review draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-06.
So here comes a bunch of comments:
* The SDP support really ought to use a different protocol in the m=field.
This stuff is not DCCP.
* An example SDP probably wouldn't hurt.
* This specification is relevant
Thanks for your comments, I can reply - but I will need others in the WG
to chime-in on these topics.
On 28/02/2011 10:58, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Hello,
One of the DCCP charis asked me to review draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-06.
So here comes a bunch of comments:
* The SDP support
This mail starts a working group last call for the UDP encapsulation
draft. The draft is available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
dccp-udpencap-06 . Please read the draft and send any comments to the
DCCP mailing list.
1. I agree with Rémi Denis-Courmont's comment that a new m=
-Original Message-
From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Gorry Fairhurst
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:23 AM
To: dccp@ietf.org; r...@remlab.net
Subject: Re: [dccp] WGLC for draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap
Thanks for your comments, I can reply -
