DCCP-UDP: A Datagram Congestion Control Protocol UDP Encapsulation for NAT Traversal
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: RFC Editor <email@example.com>, dccp mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, dccp chair <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Encapsulation for NAT Traversal (DCCP-UDP)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-11.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Encapsulation for NAT Traversal (DCCP-UDP)' (draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-11.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and Martin Stiemerling. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap/
Technical Summary The document specifies a mechanism to encapsulate DCCP packets in UDP datagrams, to support NAT traversal through devices that do not support DCCP natively. It also discusses various interactions related to encapsulation, such as those related to MTU discovery or ECN processing, and interactions with higher level protocols. Working Group Summary The DCCP working group has been generally supportive of the document. It went through three working group last calls; starting on August 2010, February 2011, and April 2012. All WGLCs have been forwarded also to TSVWG working group, and the second WGLC was announced in MMUSIC working group. During the first WGLC, various technical fixes were proposed. The second WGLC proposed integration with NAT traversal signaling solutions such as ICE. However, specifying this was considered to be a significant effort, and not within DCCP WG's expertise, so it was decided that these interactions will be specified in a separate document. The third WGLC on the current version of the document was concluded without comments. Given all these iterations and cross-WG review, the shepherd thinks the document has gone through a good review. Document Quality As indicated above, the document went through a cross-WG review with TSVWG and MMUSIC WGs. Some individual implementation prototypes of the earlier version of the specification have been made, but at the moment no implementation activities on this specification are known. Personnel Document Shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti <firstname.lastname@example.org> Responsible Area Director is Wesley Eddy <email@example.com>.