On 19 May 2010, at 15:55, Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
On 4/8/10 3:16 AM, Jukka Manner wrote:
[JM]: I personally don't like to idea that the DCCP header is changed
when it goes through UDP encapsulation. Otherwise we are not talking
anymore about just simply UDP encapsulation but rather about a
whole new
protocol. So the WG should either consider
a) straight UDP encapsulation of DCCP (DCCP specific or generic?
that is the question), or
b) a new UDP-based DCCP-like protocol, as this draft proposes.
But you shouldn't say that this draft is point a, which it is not.
I have to agree with this. I would rather see a straight UDP
encapsulation with an API that enables it in the default DCCP
implementation.
Even if it wastes bytes or duplicates fields, I would rather see as
few changes to the DCCP packet as possible.
After this is specified, *then* you can start trying to combine
fields to minimize packet size.
DCCP isn't deployed, period. I'd rather see deployment, first, and
efficiency, second.
Agreed.
--
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/
