Hi Gorry, all, The -03 draft looks pretty good to me. Some minor comments:
In Section 4, I'm not sure I see the motivation for using a different encapsulation for higher-layer protocols in DCCP-NAT than in DCCP-STD. Unless there is a strong use scenario, I'd recommend mandating that the different encapsulations MUST be the same. Section 5.1 could do with some words to explain the applicability of the new SDP attribute. Specifically, it's likely only useful if the offering party is on the public Internet, or in the same private addressing realm as the answering party, since otherwise the port advertised is unlikely to be reachable due to the NAT. Note in Section 5.1 that the "a=dccp-in-udp:" attribute can be used in a declarative SDP file, in addition to in offer/answer mode. It might also be worth noting, in Section 5.1, that procedures for handling DCCP-STD and/or DCCP-NAT with ICE may need to be developed, but are left for further study. Section 8: s/Collin/Colin/ Cheers, Colin On 8 Dec 2010, at 13:05, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Encapsulation for NAT Traversal > (DCCP-UDP) > > Following a discussion with Pasi, I volunteered to be an editor for the above > document and to collect the comments, responses and offered text together > from the WGLC into a new WG draft. > > As it turns out, many of the comments overlapped and some impacted several > sections. I've also tried therefore to increase consistency in terminology > and to include text to address all comments raised. > > I may have missed some, or may have perhaps misinterpreted some comments, so > please check the ID carefully against your own comemnts and tell me if this > is OK or not. We can update again if there are issues that have not been > addressed. > > Best wishes, > > Gorry -- Colin Perkins http://csperkins.org/
