DCCP wouldn't need to care about checksums if we had a generic
encapsulation scheme, such as the one we have been discussing on the TSV
list, the Generic UDP Tunneling scheme GUT.
Jukka
On 04/12/2010 06:05 PM, Phelan, Tom wrote:
Hi All,
OK, I'll accept the apparent consensus and make the DCCP header the same
format in both encapsulations. Note that a DCCP implementation is still
going to need to know whether this came in with UDP encap or STD encap
-- the checksum processing needs to be different at least.
Tom P.
-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:csp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 5:55 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: Pasi Sarolahti; DCCP working group
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt
On 7 Apr 2010, at 15:14, Phelan, Tom wrote:
-----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
...
* 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.
We're early enough in the life of DCCP that I'd prefer we get this
right, than preserve running code that has minimal deployment.
--
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/
--
Jukka MJ Manner, Professor, PhD. Phone: +358+(0)9+470 22481
Aalto University Mobile: +358+(0)50+5112973
Department of Communications Fax: +358+(0)9+470 22474
and Networking (Comnet) Office: G320a (Otakaari 5A)
P.O. Box 13000, FIN-00076 Aalto E-mail: jukka.manner@xxxxxx
Finland www.netlab.hut.fi/~jmanner/
