Hi,
Okay, I herewith speak up: yes I want to see UDP encapsulation for
both these protocols
(but right now I'm not sure which one).
Both SCTP and DCCP are useful - if there was no consensus on that,
ever, these
groups would never have been formed, and the protocols would never have
been developed.
Now, they are not used much (on the Internet involving NATs); at least
DCCP isn't. That's a problem. UDP encapsulation is a way to try to
solve this problem - and saying that we shouldn't do this because the
protocols aren't used is a bit stupid, isn't it?
To repeat this more clearly and bluntly:
tool X isn't working well => noone uses it.
So let's not fix tool X because noone uses it anyway.
Hmmm...
Cheers,
Michael
On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
please keep this discussion focused on which approach we should
follow for UDP-encapsulating DCCP and SCTP.
I'm happy Lloyd posted his views. I'm hoping other community members
will speak up as well. If I were asked to characterize current
consensus, I'd probably say "disinterest for either
approach." (Which would be fine, but doesn't quite match the earlier
feeling I got from the community, i.e., that we do want UDP encaps
for these protocols.)
Lars
