|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-00#section-3.3section 3.3 of the draft and its use of UDP as UDP-lite -- despite UDP-lite being given a different protocol number because consensus was that messing with UDP checksum and length fields in this way was not compatible with established UDP implementation use - makes me very very uneasy. (The earlier phelan draft had a hack around using a UDP zero checksum, which is arguably worse.) This draft cannot go forwards. Or it should use UDP-lite. This is a workgroup draft? Seriously? Section 5 of RFC3828 and tsvwg experience indicates why this is a bad idea. Is expedience more important?
Some others have made this comment, too, so I think this is something that should be changed before the draft moves forward.
None of the drafts in question are final yet, so I think the discussion and the subsequent decision should be based on the merits/ disadvantages of the overall approaches, rather than the current state of the drafts. Although I'm sure the authors will appreciate all detailed comments on their drafts as well.