My assertion wasn't that we can not implement (or even can not define)
such a thing, but that we had not done so. Thats why the constraint "do
not design any new transports" was an important part of the puzzle.
Dan Wing has pointed to an I-D that has started to fill that hole.
Yours,
Joel
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
While I disagree with Jonathan's assertion that we should insert an
entirely useless (for all but NAT) UDP header in front of all new
protocols we design, I also disagree with Joel's (implicit) assumption
that we can't implement congestion control on top of UDP.
SCTP mapped on top of UDP would have exactly the same congestion control
properties as SCTP mapped on top of IP.
Once I've read the draft, I may have other opinions.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf