Subject: RE: Why not TCPng?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:06:18 +0200

Hi all,

> d) Not sure what problems there are in UDP itself. 

While perhaps not a UDPng, there is a new proposal - 
DCP.  There will be a bof in Salt Lake City for it.

The agenda, with links to relevant documents, can
be found here:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/01dec/dcp.txt

best regards,
John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 05:16:11 -0500

This has been a useful discussion.

> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/01dec/dcp.txt

Good point.  Also in the realm of new UDP-like services:
UDP-lite.  This will be on the TSVWG agenda in Salt Lake
again, nearing its IETF Last Call for standardization.

The earlier point about SCTP and certain additions to TCP
is a good one too - rather than redo TCP, which cannot
accomplish all application goals, we've identified needed new 
services and developed those.

Besides purely new capabilities, such as the unordered
delivery in both DCP and SCTP, another goal has been to
gain better DoS-resistance in transports.  TCP has not
had this work, while the new protocols have.  We are looking
for implementation and use experience with SCTP's DoS
resistance features (and always for more hands-on feedback
about any transport work).

Let's move any more followup on this to the TSVWG list,

Allison