Tom,
A couple of comments:
1) I think DCCP_RAW is still a very odd turn of phrase for what the IETF
would call a native transport. This seems to imply someone in user-land
trying to use a "raw" IP socket, or something. Please can we call this
DCCP_Native or just "native DCCP" or "DCCP transport".
2) I agree with others on the checksum concerns. If you use UDP with no
checksum, there is no port validation - this vulnerability needs to be
described in the security considerations section. I'd argue particularly
a pain, since one of the reasons for using this mode - perhaps the main
reason - is that you want a link-layer coverage different to the entire
packet for error-tolerant apps. In this scenario corruption of ports is
not improbable, although you could argue this was not hugely important
if the content is error tolerant - still I'd argue there was a
difference - getting someone else speech/video samples is different to
distortion of your own stream.
3) Does UDP with no checksum encaps actually make any sense? If you want
to be corruption tolerant you should use a link-layer that knows about
transports that allow this. UDP-Lite would be sensible if you wanted to
test the mode - but has the same deployment issues as DCCP.
I recall asking this before, just before the draft went dormant.
Finally, please remember to make a note this mode is not valid for IPv6:-)
Best wishes,
Gorry
