On May 18, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: > 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) I vote for (1) since I do not see that a (real) generic solution is possible. Best regards Michael > > 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... >
