With Eddie's addition here, Pasi's list hits the major points. I'll have a new draft before the deadline. Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eddie Kohler [mailto:kohler@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:33 AM > To: Pasi Sarolahti > Cc: 'dccp' working group; Phelan, Tom > Subject: Re: Tracking dccp-udpencap > > Using a 6-tuple for flow identification needs to be added to this list; > the spec is incorrect without it. > > I have no objection to Gorry's firewall suggestion. > E > > > On 10/13/10 4:30 AM, Pasi Sarolahti wrote: > > Hi, > > > > To my understanding the status of the main issues and comments made on > draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-02 is as follows: > > > > * checksum calculation -- it seems that the rough consensus is to keep > with the current approach, i.e., UDP checksum is calculated and DCCP > checksum is disabled, and therefore partial checksums are not available > with UDP encapsulation. Some additional text is needed to discuss the > tradeoffs and reasoning why this approach was taken. > > > > * default src/dst ports -- the current text is to be clarified to be > more specific on how the UDP ports are set on outgoing packet and what is > to be expected on incoming packets > > > > * ICMP handling -- needs to be discussed in the draft, after outlining > on the mailing list the main points on what is to be said > > > > * Clarifying the limitations of SDP with NATs in Sec. 5.1 -- will be > done in the next version > > > > * Text on handling DCCP-UDP in firewalls in Sec. 6 -- There were > comments by Gorry on August 31, but it is unclear if we have reached > consensus. How is it? > > > > (in addition to smaller nits) > > > > Do we have common understanding of the above? > > > > The cut-off deadline for IETF-79 is in one and a half weeks, Oct 25. > Unless there are disagreements of the issues, it would be good to have the > next version available by then, so that we can punt it forward (possibly > after a short review period for the changes). > > > > - Pasi > >
