For what it is worth, the tsv working group is considering whether to process
mp-dccp on the standards track, but then the IETF seems not to care too deeply
about open-source licence compliance. Or recent kernel implementations or
implementations that have a realistic path towards mainline inclusion... but I
digress.
Regards
Sebastian
On 10 July 2023 22:35:40 CEST, Stephen Hemminger via Bloat
<bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 10:32:32 -0400 (EDT)
>"David P. Reed" <dpr...@deepplum.com> wrote:
>
>> How to find a kernel maintainer to care about DCCP, seems to be the question
>> for Linux.
>> I am tempted... Not to get involved with IETF "barriers" (what a mess, given
>> the folks in IETF who resisted in AQM, I wouldn't last a minute), but to
>> keep DCCP support alive.
>> The barrier here is getting accepted as a Linux maintainer, which is a
>> different issue entirely, looking at my last two experiences with submitting
>> simple bug fixes to the kernel, which were nightmares. I don't have the
>> commitment to become accepted as a maintainer.
>> But it seems good to maintain DCCP, despite its lack of popularity as an
>> IETF standard. It does deal with CC in a way that simplifies use of UDP for
>> serious work.
>
>Interesting that there is an out of tree DCCP, complete with likely GPL
>license violation.
>https://github.com/telekom/mp-dccp
>_______________________________________________
>Bloat mailing list
>Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity._______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
