Hi Arjuna,
See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:53 AM
To: Jeroen Van Velthoven
Cc: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dccp] TFRC average loss interval calculation
Ok I went through the audio
Hi All,
I've sent a draft on DTLS over DCCP to the I-D administrator. While
we're waiting for the admin to dig itself out of the last-minute deluge,
you can get a copy at
http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/draft-phelan-dccp-dtls-00.txt.
Comments appreciated...
Tom P.
Hi Sally,
I am assuming that this would best go in dccp instead of tsvwg...
I think that's what we decided a few meetings ago...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 6:05 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: dccp@ietf.org
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:17 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: 'dccp' working group; Gorry Fairhurst
Subject: Re: [dccp] CCID 3 - Slow Starting with One packet per
second..
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your reply :). Yes it does, but I thought it was only
after it has got a RTT sample (which
Hi DCCPers,
In Montreal, we had a discussion about what service codes should be used by
apps using DTLS over DCCP. The discussion was inconclusive, and we decided to
continue it on the list, so let's do it :-).
Remember that the Service Code is a field in DCCP-Request packets that
Describes
Hi All,
I've submitted a revised draft for DTLS over DCCP to the I-D depository
(draft-phelan-dccp-dtls-01.txt). While we're waiting for it to be
posted, you can get the text, and a diff-marked version, at
http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/.
Tom P.
Hi Gorry,
I think this is a nice taxonomy of keep-alive use cases. The question,
I think, is what are the problems that arise when zero-length packets
are used for (all) keep-alives? One of the problems appears to be
disambiguation.
For use 1 (NAT refresh), no one at the receiver cares about
:23 AM
To: Phelan, Tom; 'Lars Eggert'; 'ext Gorry Fairhurst'
Cc: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dccp] Why do we have or should have keep-alive packets?
Dear Tom,
I agree with you on this issue, and I guess we SHOULD have a new
packet
type called DCCP-Alive packet, that could be used for DCCP level
Hi Arjuna,
[snipped]
The obvious question that arises is why does the application send a
zero-length datagram? And why should the DCCP sender send any
DCCP-data
packet when the application has nothing to send! So my belief is that
DCCP-data packets have zero length application area has no
Hi Gorry,
See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:58 AM
To: Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Cc: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dccp] Why do we have or should have keep-alive packets?
Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:
Dear
Hi All,
This is to announce the beginning of a working group last call for
draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt, RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control
Protocol (DCCP) (available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-rtp-05.txt.
Last call will end on 18-May (two weeks from now rounded to
Hi All,
Last week I submitted a new version of DTLS over DCCP to the archives
(now draft-ietf-dccp-dtls-00.txt). While we're waiting for it to
percolate through, you can get a copy at
http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-dtls-00.txt.
Tom P.
Hi Gorry,
I'm having trouble extracting from your draft some specific resolutions
to the confusions over service codes that I would like to see. You seem
to mix tutorial information about the basics of service codes with the
attempt to establish clarity on certain points in a way that makes it
Hi Gorry,
[clipped]
8) Do you propose to document some Service Code values for
IETF-defined
services, e.g. Define some SC allocations for RTP/DTLS/DCCP?
I don't see any generic applications that should be defined (if RTP
wants to use DTLS, then I think whoever wants to do it should define
Hi Ingemar,
This thread got started while I was on vacation, so I'm a little late
jumping in, but...
The basic topic here is meant to be part of
draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-media-02.txt -- please check that out, especially
section 4.3.1, which is meant to deal with two-way interactive
applications. It
Hi All,
If we continue to reply on this thread we should probably remove
Internet-Drafts and i-d-announce from the CC list -- no need to bother
them with our traffic (and get bounce and moderator-approval-awaiting
messages from them :-)).
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Phelan, Tom
Hi Eddie,
One question on your comments:
3
= This section explicitly updates RFC 4340 as follows:
A DCCP implementation MUST allow multiple applications using
different DCCP service codes to listen on the same server port.
A DCCP implementation SHOULD provide a method
Hi All,
In Chicago, Colin suggested that I look at an ongoing item in the AVT WG
that was specifying the use of SRTP with DTLS
(draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp-00.txt), and see if there were any necessary
adjustments that DTLS over DCCP needed to make.
Well, I've looked at it and there doesn't seem to
Hi Lars,
Thanks for the comments. On the ClientHello retransmission issues -- A
retransmission timer for ClientHellos, and retransmission of them are
part of the DTLS protocol, one of the basic differences between DTLS and
TLS.
When I have all of the comments I'll make a new version and clear
Hi All,
I've submitted a draft-ietf-dccp-dtls-03.txt. It's currently available
at http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-dtls-03.txt and a
version with diffs from -02 is at
http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-dtls-03-diffs.pdf.
The changes are to address the last call comments
Hi Gorry,
Thanks for the comments. See inline...
Tom P.
1)
/DTLS implementations SHOULD control the use of the DF-bit in concert/
^^^
- in concert, is not clear to me.
[Tom P.] How about, DTLS over DCCP implementations
Hi Gorry,
See inline (this is getting long, but be sure to get to the end, that's
where the controversy is :-))...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 6:31 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: 'dccp' working group
Subject: Re
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 8:24 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: 'dccp' working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] Comments on
draft-fairhurst-dccp-behave-update-01.txt
Thanks Tom.
We started thinking in our Intro about firewalls, and in the process
picked up a lot of text on NATs. We *did
Hi Gorry,
This is a vastly improved version. Minus the sections at the end where
there are editor's notes and to-be-completed sections, I think you've
covered the subject completely and well. Some minor issues:
I'd like to consider moving the new service definitions to another
draft. This
Hi All,
At the WG meeting in Vancouver there was consensus to adopt the above
draft as a work item for the DCCP Working Group.
If you have comments on the draft or would like to comment on whether
this should proceed as a working group I-D, please do send comments to
the list by the 17th
Hi Karena,
There has been no further activity on mobility in DCCP since Eddie's
(now expired) draft. At this moment there doesn't seem to be anyone
expressing interest in continuing the activity.
Tom Phelan
DCCP co-chair
-Original Message-
From: Karena Stannett [mailto:[EMAIL
Hi All,
DTLS over DCCP version -04 has a small number of changes resulting from
discussions that happened mostly during Vancouver. Since I've now
figured out how to get the meta-data straight, the automated submission
process has beaten me to the announcement and posting of the main text,
so you
Hi Pasi,
Thanks for the careful reading and comments. See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 2:33 AM
To: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: [dccp] WGLC comments for draft-ietf-dccp-dtls-04
Hi,
1) Section 3
Hi Gorry,
---
One Minor NiT that should be corrected when next the revision is
made:
OLD:
/a DCCP connection could conceivable contain both/
^
NEW:
/it is conceivable that a DCCP connection could contain both/
^^
or
To: 'DCCP mailing list'
Cc: Phelan, Tom
Subject: [dccp] UDP checksum in phelan-dccp-natencap-00
Thanks for writing draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-00.txt. In it, I
noticed:
For DCCP-NAT, the function of the DCCP-RAW generic header field
Checksum is performed by the UDP Checksum field
as the second issue, I'll put that in another e-mail.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:57 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Ian McDonald; 'dccp' working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-00.txt
Hi,
On 14
to listen to
counterarguments.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:57 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Ian McDonald; 'dccp' working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-00.txt
Hi,
On 14 Feb 2008, at 20
Hi Andrew,
Oops! You're right. I was thinking it was OK because the NAT wouldn't
modify a 0 checksum, but I forgot about NAPT. Thanks.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Andrew McDonald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:04 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: DCCP
See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Colin Perkins
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:16 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: ''dccp' working group'; Phelan, Tom
Subject: Re: [dccp] DCCP-over-UDP [was
draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-00
-Original Message-
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:32 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Dan Wing; 'dccp' working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] DCCP-over-UDP [was
draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-00.txt]
On 21 Feb 2008, at 21:55, Phelan, Tom wrote
: Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Phelan, Tom; 'Colin Perkins'; ''dccp' working group'
Subject: RE: [dccp] DCCP-over-UDP [was
draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-00.txt]
Can you explain why 100ms seems reasonable?
Longer than that would become noticable in those cases where
Hi All,
DCCP-TP is a fresh-start implementation of DCCP optimized for
portability that I have been working on. The code is at a very early
beta stage of development, but I felt that it was best to get it out to
other eyes before the next IETF meeting, so I'm making it available now.
There is a
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:19 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: 'dccp' working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-00.txt
Hi,
one question we really need to answer is whether we want to go through
the pains of specifying UDP encapsulations for all our transport
that
it's necessary to reinvent transport protocols just to get NAT traversal
(and get around the rosenberg-hourglass problem).
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Kohler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:31 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Colin Perkins; 'dccp' working
Hi Gorry,
See inline. Stuff I have no comment on has been snipped.
Tom P.
Section 2.1:
Why are you suggesting that the ephemeral ports should include
1024-49151? So going back to above, that seems to be advocating only
Well Known ports and eliminating Registered.
GF My understanding
Hi Jawad,
Thanks a bunch for working on this :-). I'm not sure exactly what
problem you're having -- is it with raw sockets or UDP sockets?
Tom P.
PS. I posted a message on the dccp-tp forum (at
http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp-tp/tiki-index.php) with some more detail.
-Original
Hi David,
On checking the pseudo-code and equations -- I have completed writing an
implementation of CCID 3 based on this draft (still debugging it
though), and have found the equations and pseudo-code to be accurate and
helpful. The latest version of the draft does include feedback from
that
Hi All,
Release R0.10 of DCCP-TP is now available. The major new content is
support for CCID 3. As a reminder, DCCP-TP is a fresh-start
implementation of DCCP optimized for portability.
Source downloads, documentation and a discussion forum are available at
http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp-tp/.
Hi All,
I've submitted a new version of draft-phelan-dccp-encap (-01). While
we're waiting for it to be posted, it's available at
http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-01.txt and diffs
from the -00 version are available at
.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: james woodyatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:26 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security
tom--
Please forward
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-
security
to the DCCP
Hi All,
On request of the nomcom chair, please consider volunteering for the
nomcom. See the message below.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of NomCom Chair
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 10:43 AM
To: Working Group Chairs
Subject:
Hi Remi,
Here are some comments.
Tom P.
Section 4.3:
o The filtering behavior for DCCP MAY be independent of the filtering
behavior for UDP.
Shouldn't that be for UDP or any other protocol or something similar.
Certainly it's acceptable for the DCCP filtering behavior to be
independent of
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the comments -- just what we need :-).
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Scharf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 2:32 PM
To: Gorry Fairhurst; Phelan, Tom
Cc: Arjuna Sathiaseelan
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-dccp-quickstart-00
Hi All,
This is to announce the beginning of working group last call for The
DCCP Service Code, draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-06.txt (see
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-06.txt).
Last call will run for two weeks, ending Monday, 8-Sep.
Please send detailed comments to
paragraph, but it seems unclear to me.
Security considerations (editorial):
The summary of the section should include an item 5 on the benchmarking
services.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Phelan, Tom
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 9:44 AM
OK -- looks good.
-Original Message-
From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:28 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: dccp 'dccp' working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] Working group last call for service codes - reply
Phelan, Tom wrote:
Hi Gorry
Hi All,
This is to announce the start of Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-dccp-simul-open-05 (see
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-simul-open-05.txt
for a copy). The last call will end on Friday, 14-Nov-2008.
Please send your comments to the list or directly to me if
Hi All,
I've submitted draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-02. You can get the text from
http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-02.txt and a
diff-marked version from
http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-02-diffs.pdf.
The main change is to update RTP over DCCP to add
Hi Bryan,
In the DCCP meeting you mentioned that a problem you have with
dccp-natencap is its preservation of the DCCP port numbers. Let me give
you the thought train that led to preserving the port numbers and maybe
you can give me your thoughts on why they shouldn't be preserved.
The idea
Hi Remi,
See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Rémi Denis-Courmont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 11:57 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Bryan Ford; dccp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: dccp-natencap and port numbers
On Friday 21 November 2008 16:55:13 ext Phelan
Hi Colin,
See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 1:43 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dccp] draft-phelan-dccp-natencap-02
Tom,
On 31 Oct 2008, at 17:45, Phelan, Tom wrote
Hi All,
This is to announce an abbreviated working group last call for
draft-ietf-dccp-simul-open-06.txt. The last call will close on Friday,
19-Dec. Detailed comments are appreciated, but so are I've read it and
I support comments.
Tom P.
: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Phelan, Tom
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:06 AM
To: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: [dccp] WLC for draft-ietf-dccp-simul-open-06.txt
Hi All,
This is to announce an abbreviated working group last call for
draft-ietf-dccp-simul
Hi Michael,
Neat! I assume the idea would be to make this an experimental CCID.
Are you considering one draft for both the algorithm and CCID, or one
for the algorithm and one for the CCID as with TFRC?
At any rate, this effort does seem quite in line with our charter --
I've always felt that
Hi All,
This is to announce the close of working group last call for
draft-ietf-dccp-quickstart-03.txt. A new version is available,
draft-ietf-dccp-quickstart-04.txt, that addresses the comments received.
If you feel that version doesn't address the comments, please speak up.
Tom P.
Hi Andrew,
Not that I know of. And there's been no activity on the draft since the
first version in 2003.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Andrew Lentvorski
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:19 AM
To: dccp@ietf.org
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for the great suggestions for DCCP work :-). I'm quite interested
personally in the multipath possibilities. I'd like to hear you expand a bit
on how DCCP could be a control layer for multipath TCP.
Flow control for apps with sending rates that are step functions is an
Hi,
Take a look at http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp-tp/. This implementation is
intended for portability, so it should be possible to adapt.
Tom P.
From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Victor Zhang
Sent: Thursday, July
Hi Jukka,
Thanks for taking this on. I agree with all of your suggestions, but
I'm having trouble syncing up with your questions. What version of the
draft are you using? I'm looking at version -03 at
http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-user-guide-03.txt and page
and section numbers
stabilized -- is this the original charter?
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:26 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: dccp 'dccp' working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] Mul-TFRC (draft-welzl-multfrc-00)
Tom,
I don't see
: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Gorry Fairhurst
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:26 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: dccp 'dccp' working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] Mul-TFRC (draft-welzl-multfrc-00)
Tom,
I don't see anything in the Charter about using DCCP
: Colin Perkins [mailto:c...@csperkins.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:17 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-phelan-dccp-
natencap-03
Hi,
As I said in the meeting, we have an implementation of this (the basic
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the comments. See inline...
Tom P.
[snipped]
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
Hi Michael (Tüxen this time, not Welzl :-)),
Thanks for the comments too. See inline...
Tom P.
[snipped]
Yes, absolutely, and
I agree with Michael. Not only for NAT traversal, but if you want to run
DCCP on
nodes which do not support it in the OS and you can not open a raw socket.
This
Hi Michael,
OK, I'll add the UDP length field to the partial checksum in the next
version.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Welzl [mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 10:51 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Pasi Sarolahti; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp
that
this would open quite the can of worms :-).
Opinions, anyone?
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Gorry Fairhurst [mailto:go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:16 AM
To: Phelan, Tom; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] Soliciting input on UDP encapsulation for DCCP
: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:42 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-phelan-dccp-
natencap-03
Tom,
For the SDP, I think what's needed is a simple a=dccp-in-udp
attribute which is declarative, takes no parameters
Hi Colin,
Well, I'm not sure, but that's why I said probably neither of them
showstoppers :-). Let me think about it a bit...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:c...@csperkins.org]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:58 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: DCCP working group
[mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Lars Eggert
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 4:03 AM
To: Michael Tüxen
Cc: go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk; DCCP working group; Phelan, Tom
Subject: Re: [dccp] One ring to rule them all (generic UDP encap
oftransports)
Hi,
On 2009-11-21, at 0:34, Michael Tüxen
.
Opinions?
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Welzl [mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:59 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] Soliciting input on UDP encapsulation for DCCP
3) Define UDP-Lite-in-UDP
for reminding us of this).
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Welzl [mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:54 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: Partial checksum support in DCCP_NAT
On Nov 23, 2009, at 4:40
Hi Pasi,
Yes, I greatly appreciate the feedback the draft received and plan a new
revision once we come to a decision on the way forward.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Pasi Sarolahti
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009
Hi All,
I've submitted draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00 to the I-D editor. While
we're waiting for it to arrive in the archive, it can be viewed at
http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt. You can
see a diff with the previous (individual) version at
Hi Pasi,
See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Pasi Sarolahti [mailto:pasi.sarola...@iki.fi]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 6:15 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
Hi Tom,
Here are some personal
.
-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
=
A).
What am I missing?
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Jukka Manner [mailto:jukka.man...@tkk.fi]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:21 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Colin Perkins; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
DCCP wouldn't need
AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Colin Perkins; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
Yes, that's right. Except that GUT itself recalculates the checksum
before the packet hits the DCCP receiver. Thus, the UDP-encapsulated
DCCP flow never needs to do
Hi All,
Well, quite a few issues have been brought up here. Here are my
thoughts on one of them.
Why not just tunnel it? Just tunnel it means IP header/UDP
header/inner IP header/real transport header. The problem here is in
the addresses in the inner IP header.
In most uses of IPv4
Hi Lloyd,
See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk [mailto:l.w...@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 4:44 PM
To: Phelan, Tom; aco...@optonline.net; f...@cisco.com
Cc: dccp@ietf.org; tsv-a...@ietf.org; ts...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: UDP encaps
Hi Obaid,
There's a user-space implementation of DCCP over UDP based on the first
version of my draft at http://www.phelan-4.com/dccp-tp/tiki-index.php.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Syed Obaid Amin
Sent: Friday,
Hi Andrew,
It would be even better if you could implement DCCP with UDP encap
with
the baseline UDP networking facilities of Java. A whole bunch of
Android developers would grab that.
Oh, that's interesting. Maybe if I can find some time I'll look at
porting dccp-tp to Android.
Tom P.
Hi Lars,
Well, I like option 1.
I feel that option 2 is a chimera. The 'G' in the GUT proposal stands
for generic, but it is not entirely generic. The decapsulation stage
is specific to the encapsulated protocol. The GUT draft gives one decap
rule that is more-or-less suitable for TCP and
Hi All,
This comment has been made a few times and I've agreed that the next
version of DCCP-UDP will use an un-altered DCCP header.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Colin Perkins
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 4:26 PM
Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen
Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone +49 7071 2970532
http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/
-Original Message-
From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Phelan, Tom
Sent
Hi Pasi,
This sounds like a good plan overall. See inline for more...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Pasi Sarolahti [mailto:pasi.sarola...@iki.fi]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 12:45 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Christian Hoene; Colin Perkins; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] I
Hi Pasi,
OK -- I'll get a next version out as soon as I can.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Pasi Sarolahti [mailto:pasi.sarola...@iki.fi]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 9:59 PM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Christian Hoene; Colin Perkins; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] I-D
Hi Gorry,
Thanks for the close read and the comments. See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Gorry Fairhurst
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:42 PM
To: 'dccp' working group
Cc: Phelan, Tom
Subject: [dccp
Hi Gerrit,
See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Gerrit Renker
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 6:52 AM
To: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: [dccp] [udp-encap rev2] discussion/comments
Please find below the
Hi Eddie,
Thanks for the comments. I am in general agreement. See inline for
specifics.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: dccp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dccp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Eddie Kohler
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 12:45 PM
To: dccp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dccp]
Hi Andrew,
See inline...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Lentvorski [mailto:bs...@allcaps.org]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 4:19 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Gerrit Renker; dccp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dccp] [udp-encap rev2] discussion/comments
On 10/5/10 12:32 PM, Phelan
Hi Lloyd,
I'm pretty much in line with what you say here. See inline for
details...
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk [mailto:l.w...@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 4:55 AM
To: bs...@allcaps.org
Cc: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk; Phelan, Tom; ger
different to what
they already implement).
Gorry
On 8 Oct 2010, at 09:19, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
On 10/5/10 12:32 PM, Phelan, Tom wrote:
[TomP] I am very against doing the checksum calculation twice,
once
for
UDP and then again for DCCP. In my opinion, implementations
should
know
With Eddie's addition here, Pasi's list hits the major points. I'll
have a new draft before the deadline.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Kohler [mailto:koh...@cs.ucla.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:33 AM
To: Pasi Sarolahti
Cc: 'dccp' working group; Phelan, Tom
98 matches
Mail list logo
