Hi,
On Nov 20, 2009, at 3:00 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
Hello,
During the Hiroshima meeting last week some support (and some
concerns) was voiced about working on UDP encapsulation for DCCP,
with a suggestion to allocate an UDP port to be used for DCCP
encapsulation. To make this happen, it was proposed that we bring
back draft-phelan-dccp-natencap, for the WG to submit it for
Experimental RFC. Tom has now updated the draft and the refreshed
version can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-03
With the above background in mind, I'm now looking for input on the
following questions:
a) in your opinion, should the DCCP WG start working on UDP
encapsulation for DCCP?
Yes, absolutely, and
b) if yes, do you think draft-phelan-dccp-natencap is a good
starting point for this, and therefore should become a WG document?
Yes!
In addition, please speak up if you have other technical comments
about the draft.
I hope I'm not re-iterating an old discussion here, and apologize if I
am -
but I think that the partial checksum extension header should also
include
the UDP header, because it is applied when the UDP header
checksum is zero - which means that there is no other ckecksum applied
on the UDP header... DCCP could, and probably should, make up for that.
I think it would also make sense to define usage of UDP-Lite, especially
when the DCCP checksum stuff is used
Cheers,
Michael
