|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Hi,I wrote up this short summary what happened with DCCP in the last meeting (apologies for forgetting to send these earlier). If you find something incorrectly said, shout. The full minutes are available as part of tsvwg notes at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/minutes/tsvwg.txt .
------------DCCP did not meet in Anaheim, but the only active draft, draft-ietf- dccp-udpencap, was discussed in the TSVWG session, along with a similar draft for SCTP. There were some feedback about the mechanism, regarding the proposal to reuse UDP length field to implement partial checksums, and not using the standard DCCP header with UDP encapsulation. The message from the room was towards favoring the standard use of UDP and DCCP headers instead of the currently documented use. A generic mechanism for UDP encapsulation was also brought up as a possible alternative for protocol specific variants. No conclusions were made whether the IETF should work on a generic approach instead of the protocol-specific alternatives, but it was noted that we should decide to pick one of the approaches.
The envisioned next steps would be to revise draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap, taking the feedback into account, into a shape that it would be ready for WG last call. By (or at) the next meeting, based on the revised drafts, we should confirm whether we go forward with the protocol specific drafts, or whether the IETF wants to pursue a generic approach.
------------- - Pasi