At 07:00 AM 5/21/2010, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2010-5-18, at 10:37, Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Espoo) wrote:
> (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)
my current count of folks who stated an opinion stands as follows.
We're not voting - this is to help us determine where the consensus is.
(1) 3
(2) 3
(3) 2
This doesn't indicate consensus on which flavor if UDP encaps should
be pursued, or if it should be pursued at all in the IETF. With the
turnout this low, my current conclusion would be that we drop the
topic and proposed work items.
Please state an opinion on 1, 2 or 3 if you care about this topic.
I've waited a bit to see if we'd be closer to a consensus to go with,
without my individual input.
with my (tsvwg) chair hat off - I'm not familiar with the specific
need for DCCP encaps over UDP (I'm just being honest about my
exposure with DCCP - nothing else), but I do want to see an SCTP
encaps over UDP solution (alone or generic), therefore of the choices
listed above, I'm not sure which to choose; and here's why:
if only one transport protocol needs to be encapsulated over UDP then
that transport protocol ought to have a means that's not generic, but
one more tuned to the specific transport protocol.
If we believe there needs to be more than one transport protocol
encapsulated over UDP, that's the tipping point for me - and that
would sway be towards #2.
So, #1 is no good for me, as I believe #2 ought to be the goal if we
have more than one transport protocol being encapsulated over
UDP. #3 isn't an option either for me because (sorry Lloyd) I
believe we have to address the need for SCTP encaps over UDP.
James
(with my chair hat off)
Lars
PS: The count comes from emails by Andrew, Tom, Brian, Michael,
Lloyd, Bob, Jukka.
