Lars 1) They may look similar now, but their paths could (will:-) diverge over the life of the RFC and then it will be easier to evolve them separately. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- > > On 5/18/10 12:37 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) > > > > 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... > >
