Hi, the discussion has touched on lots of things related to UDP encaps, but I haven't seen anything I'd call consensus on the question below. I'd therefore like to ask folks to specifically state which option they support: (1) do one SCTP-specific and one DCCP-specific UDP encaps (2) do one generic UDP encaps that can be used with both (3) do neither (don't do any sort of UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP) Thanks, Lars On 2010-4-22, at 12:57, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote: > Hi, > > as most of you probably know, there are two different proposals for how to encapsulate SCTP and DCCP inside UDP. > > One approach proposes two protocol-specific encapsulation schemes (described in draft-tuexen-sctp-udp-encaps and draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap). > > The second approach proposes a generic encapsulation scheme that can be applied to both SCTP and DCCP (draft-manner-tsvwg-gut). > > As a community, we do need to come to consensus on which of these two approaches we want to follow when it comes to UDP encapsulation of SCTP and DCCP. I believe it would be very confusing if we were to standardize both approaches. > > I'd hence like to ask folks to read the three documents and post their views to the tsvwg@xxxxxxxx list. I'm personally especially interested in hearing from folks who aren't on the author lists of the documents, but obviously, the authors expert opinions do matter. > > Thanks, > Lars > > PS: I'm pushing on this topic, because UDP encapsulation is the last remaining work item in the DCCP working group before it can close...
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
