I see two issues that are not covered in this I-D and which I think should be. They are mentioned in DTLS (RFC4347) and datagram size, timeouts and congestion control (s.4.1.1). As the RFC says, DTLS can generate handshake messages up to 2**24-1 byte and messages of many kilobyte are common, all loss sensitive, so the congestion control coupled with timeouts needs to be sufficient for the message to get through; I think that this should be discussed. Second, these large, elastic, loss sensitive initial messages may be quite at variance with the subsequent application traffic; once congestion control has adapted to the initial messages, how long will it take to adapt to different characteristics of the application? (simulation, anyone?) Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gorry Fairhurst" <gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "'dccp' working group" <dccp@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <dccp-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 12:57 PM Subject: WG Last-Call (WGLC) for comments: draft-ietf-dccp-dtls-02 > > This note starts the WG Last-Call for comments for the WG document named > below: > > Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) over > the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dccp-dtls-02 > > This Last-Call will end on midnight, 2nd November 2007. > > Members of the IETF dccp WG are now asked to read the above draft and > send any issues, comments, or corrections to this mailing list. The WGLC > procedure is the last chance for this working group to modify/correct > this document. This document is intended for publication as an PROPOSED > STANDARD RFC. > > Please *DO* forward any comments to the list. The document shepherd for > the process following completion of the WGLC shall be me, as the dccp > Co-Chair (Gorry Fairhurst). > > Best wishes, > > Gorry Fairhurst > (DCCP WG Co-Chair) > > >
