I have a few comments on the DTLS/DCCP I-D. These are:
1) The abstract uses the word "describes" please change to "specifies",
since this is being considered for a PS, not an INFO RFC.
2) The abstract would benefit from 1 or two lines about why DTLS is
useful... For example taken from abstract of DTLS itself? E.g.
" DTLS provides communications privacy for datagram protocols. This allows
client/server
applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent
eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery."
3) Intro: "describes" -> "specifies".
4) Section 3.2 - is this a RFC2119 "MUST" or not? - please explain.
> the two handshakes must happen in series
^^^^
5) Section 3.2 - is this a RFC2119 "MUST" or not? - please explain.
> Subsequent DTLS handshake messages ... must wait for the completion
^^^^
6) Section 3.4 - could it be helpful to refer to the SC work item (e.g. as
an informative reference)?
7) Section 3.5.
My understanding is that Service Codes can be used to identify protocol
versions - although use to differentiate variants of a single protocol are
to be discouraged. Would the working group expect a NEW subsequent version
of DTLS to be allocated a new set of service codes, or to use the same?
8) Do you propose to document some Service Code values for IETF-defined
services, e.g. Define some SC allocations for RTP/DTLS/DCCP?
9) Section 6
Consider renaming this section "References" and make "Normative References"
a subsection.
Best wishes,
Gorry
