Hi Pasi, See inline... Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: Pasi Sarolahti [mailto:pasi.sarolahti@xxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 5:54 PM > To: DCCP working group > Cc: Phelan, Tom > Subject: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt > > Hi, > > Thanks, Tom, for submitting the the draft. Everyone, please take a > look at this version and send comments. > > Checksum calculation was discussed on the list last November to quite > some extent. What do people think, is the current version (i.e., > applying UDP length for partial checksum calculation logic, always > include UDP/DCCP header) acceptable? > > In addition, to perform some primitive issue tracking, I think the > following points were raised earlier on the mailing list, but > according to my reading are not addressed yet: > > * make a note this mode is not valid for IPv6 > -- Gorry / 2009-11-20 > (PS: I'm not sure if "this mode" referred to checksums, or the draft > overall, and not sure I understand what "not valid" means. Hopefully > UDP encapsulation is not necessary with IPv6, but technically it > could be done, right?) > [Tom P.] I'm not sure what this refers to either. Gorry? > * worth considering a straight UDP encapsulation that does not adjust > the position and order of the fields. > -- Gorry / 2009-11-20 > [Tom P.] Worth considering, but since there are already two implementations of the existing encapsulation I'm going to resist this. > * essential that any encapsulation draft also notes the drawbacks of > this mode, and hence advocates native transport were possible > (e.g. No currently defined support for ECN, No currently defined > support for shared PMTUD, Restricted support for partial coverage) > -- Gorry / 2009-11-20 > [Tom P.] Does anyone want to take a stab at noting the drawbacks? > (please shout if there was something in the past discussion I missed) > > Tom (& others), do you have opinions about the points above? > > - Pasi > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Internet-Drafts@xxxxxxxx > > Date: February 11, 2010 9:15:02 AM PST > > To: i-d-announce@xxxxxxxx > > Cc: dccp@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Datagram Congestion Control > > Protocol Working Group of the IETF. > > > > > > Title : Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) > > Encapsulation for NAT Traversal (DCCP-NAT) > > Author(s) : T. Phelan > > Filename : draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt > > Pages : 11 > > Date : 2010-02-11 > > > > This document specifies an alternative encapsulation of the Datagram > > Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP), referred to as DCCP-NAT. This > > encapsulation will allow DCCP to be carried through the current > > generation of Network Address Translation (NAT) middleboxes without > > modification of those middleboxes. > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > > Internet-Draft.
