My assertion wasn't that we can not implement (or even can not define) such a thing, but that we had not done so. Thats why the constraint "do not design any new transports" was an important part of the puzzle. Dan Wing has pointed to an I-D that has started to fill that hole. Yours, Joel Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > While I disagree with Jonathan's assertion that we should insert an > entirely useless (for all but NAT) UDP header in front of all new > protocols we design, I also disagree with Joel's (implicit) assumption > that we can't implement congestion control on top of UDP. > > SCTP mapped on top of UDP would have exactly the same congestion control > properties as SCTP mapped on top of IP. > > Once I've read the draft, I may have other opinions. > > Harald > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf