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-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Pasi Sarolahti > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:45 PM > To: DCCP working group > Subject: Re: Soliciting input on UDP encapsulation for DCCP > > Everyone, > > Many thanks for your comments and discussion and apologies for the > delay in coming back to this! > > I think a fair summary is that people who commented would support UDP > encapsulation for DCCP (and other middlebox-challenged transports), > but whether that should be hosted in TSVWG or here, and whether it is > better to aim for a common solution or do separate (but closely > aligned) drafts for different transport protocols needs to be thought > out. Note that there was discussion about the feasibility of a common > solution already in the Hiroshima meeting, in the TSVAREA session. > > I take the feedback as a positive indication to continue the work on > dccp-natencap, but I think we should not take DCCP WG action just yet, > before getting clarity on the above questions. One possible way > forward would be this: the authors continue working on the DCCP and > SCTP encapsulations as separate drafts, but aiming to converge between > them as much as possible. For the DCCP draft, I think we got some > useful feedback for Tom to work on a revision. The two encapsulation > drafts could be discussed in the Anaheim IETF side by side (possibly > in the TSVWG meeting), for deciding about the next steps. Please let > me know if you don't like this plan. > > - Pasi > > > On Nov 19, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > During the Hiroshima meeting last week some support (and some > > concerns) was voiced about working on UDP encapsulation for DCCP, > > with a suggestion to allocate an UDP port to be used for DCCP > > encapsulation. To make this happen, it was proposed that we bring > > back draft-phelan-dccp-natencap, for the WG to submit it for > > Experimental RFC. Tom has now updated the draft and the refreshed > > version can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-phelan-dccp- > natencap-03 > > > > With the above background in mind, I'm now looking for input on the > > following questions: > > > > a) in your opinion, should the DCCP WG start working on UDP > > encapsulation for DCCP? > > b) if yes, do you think draft-phelan-dccp-natencap is a good > > starting point for this, and therefore should become a WG document? > > > > In addition, please speak up if you have other technical comments > > about the draft. > > > > Thanks! > > > > - Pasi > >
