Using a 6-tuple for flow identification needs to be added to this list;
the spec is incorrect without it.
I have no objection to Gorry's firewall suggestion.
E
On 10/13/10 4:30 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote:
Hi,
To my understanding the status of the main issues and comments made on
draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-02 is as follows:
* checksum calculation -- it seems that the rough consensus is to keep with the
current approach, i.e., UDP checksum is calculated and DCCP checksum is
disabled, and therefore partial checksums are not available with UDP
encapsulation. Some additional text is needed to discuss the tradeoffs and
reasoning why this approach was taken.
* default src/dst ports -- the current text is to be clarified to be more
specific on how the UDP ports are set on outgoing packet and what is to be
expected on incoming packets
* ICMP handling -- needs to be discussed in the draft, after outlining on the
mailing list the main points on what is to be said
* Clarifying the limitations of SDP with NATs in Sec. 5.1 -- will be done in
the next version
* Text on handling DCCP-UDP in firewalls in Sec. 6 -- There were comments by
Gorry on August 31, but it is unclear if we have reached consensus. How is it?
(in addition to smaller nits)
Do we have common understanding of the above?
The cut-off deadline for IETF-79 is in one and a half weeks, Oct 25. Unless
there are disagreements of the issues, it would be good to have the next
version available by then, so that we can punt it forward (possibly after a
short review period for the changes).
- Pasi
