Hi All, This comment has been made a few times and I've agreed that the next version of DCCP-UDP will use an un-altered DCCP header. Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Colin Perkins > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 4:26 PM > To: Andrew Lentvorski > Cc: dccp@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00.txt > > 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/ > >
