: Phelan, Tom
> Cc: DCCP working group
> Subject: Re: [dccp] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-phelan-dccp-
> natencap-03
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Both of those are features, rather than bugs though, right?
> Colin
>
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2009, at 17:00, Phelan, To
no way to say "Don't bother trying DCCP_RAW".
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:c...@csperkins.org]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:42 AM
To: Phelan, Tom
Cc: DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-phelan-dccp-
n
kins [mailto:c...@csperkins.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:42 AM
> To: Phelan, Tom
> Cc: DCCP working group
> Subject: Re: [dccp] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-phelan-dccp-
> natencap-03
>
> Tom,
>
> For the SDP, I think what's needed is a si
Tom
Cc: DCCP working group
Subject: Re: [dccp] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-phelan-dccp-
natencap-03
Hi,
As I said in the meeting, we have an implementation of this (the
basic
encapsulation, not the SDP signalling), and I support it's
publication
as an experimental RFC.
e-
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:c...@csperkins.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:17 AM
> To: Phelan, Tom
> Cc: DCCP working group
> Subject: Re: [dccp] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-phelan-dccp-
> natencap-03
>
> Hi,
>
> As I said in the meet
Hi,
As I said in the meeting, we have an implementation of this (the basic
encapsulation, not the SDP signalling), and I support it's publication
as an experimental RFC. I have two suggestions for modifications,
though:
1) I'd recommend registering a UDP port for the DCCP-in-UDP
encapsu
Hi All,
I have submitted a new version of draft-phelan-dccp-natencap (-03) to
the I-D depository. This version just resurrects the draft after a
period of inactivity -- there are no technical changes.
Tom P.
-Original Message-
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmiss...@ietf.org
