Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
RFC 4340

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.

(Allison Mankin) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2005-03-03 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Scott Brim, Gen-ART

Review (positive) in document log.

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

Comment (2005-03-03 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
This is a very well-written and comprehensive specification.  There seems to be one thing missing that I think would improve the specification of DCCP over IPv6 -- an indication of when DCCP should send reachability confirmations as described in RFC 2461 (and, perhaps more importantly, when it should not).

Appendix E.1 of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-02.txt describes how TCP would know when to send (and not to send) this type of confirmation, and could be used as a guide.  However, I think that this determination might be a bit more complicated in DCCP, due to its more complex set of acknowledgement (and acknowledgement or acknowledgement) options.

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-03-02)
No email
send info
  In section 6.6.8: s/limitiations/limitations/

  In section 18, a few pointers other places in the document where
  denial-of-service protection is discussed would be helpful.

  In section 18.1 where bit error impacts are discussed, it might
  be helpful to also point to SRTP.

  In section 20: s/codesigned/co-designed/

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection