> This vicious cycle can be broken, but usually its because the new feature is > sufficiently innovative and valuable that it can help drive the cycle much > faster than normal. Much as I love transport protocols, I don't think they fit > into that category in terms of end user functionality. Right. In general, application developers have been slow to rewrite their applications to support new networking capabilities, including IPv6, QoS, SCTP/DCCP, etc. Given this, I doubt that redefining SCTP/DCCP to run over UDP would make much difference to developers who first need to be convinced of the value of alternative transports. Similar arguments can be made against rapid takeup of application-specific tunneling protocols. Now if you make available a generic tunneling mechanism that "just works" and requires no application changes, then the answer might be different. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf