Problem Statement for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
draft-ietf-dccp-problem-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2006-03-23
|
03 | Lars Eggert | State Change Notice email list have been change to dccp-chairs@ietf.org, floyd@icir.org from gf@erg.abdn.ac.uk, tphelan@sonusnet.com, floyd@icir.org |
2006-03-23
|
03 | Lars Eggert | Shepherding AD has been changed to Allison Mankin from Lars Eggert |
2006-03-23
|
03 | Lars Eggert | State Change Notice email list have been change to gf@erg.abdn.ac.uk, tphelan@sonusnet.com, floyd@icir.org from lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de, tphelan@sonusnet.com, floyd@icir.org |
2006-03-23
|
03 | Lars Eggert | Shepherding AD has been changed to Lars Eggert from Allison Mankin |
2005-09-23
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2005-09-19
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2005-09-19
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2005-09-19
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2005-09-16
|
03 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-09-15 |
2005-09-15
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2005-09-15
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] The detailed comments on security were deemed very worthwhile, but given that the DCCP specs have excellent security considerations, we decided not to … [Ballot comment] The detailed comments on security were deemed very worthwhile, but given that the DCCP specs have excellent security considerations, we decided not to revise. We just added a note to the RFC Editor for Russ's comment. |
2005-09-15
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] The security comments were deemed very worthwhile, but given that the DCCP specifications have excellent security considerations, we decided not to try to … [Ballot comment] The security comments were deemed very worthwhile, but given that the DCCP specifications have excellent security considerations, we decided not to try to revise the document. |
2005-09-15
|
03 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
2005-09-15
|
03 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2005-09-15
|
03 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2005-09-15
|
03 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2005-09-15
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Brian Carpenter |
2005-09-15
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] Gen-ART review by Lakshimnath Dondeti follows. I don't want to block an Informational on these grounds, but the authors might care to think … [Ballot comment] Gen-ART review by Lakshimnath Dondeti follows. I don't want to block an Informational on these grounds, but the authors might care to think about doing as suggested below: Summary: Very well written; however, missing security considerations ... I enjoyed reading the I-D immensely; as I was nearing the end, I was hoping to see the authors' recommendations on security protocols for a datagram congestion control protocol. Unfortunately, security did not make the cut in Section 5 on Additional Design Considerations. Furthermore, Section 8 on Security Considerations says that there are no security considerations for this document. I disagree! Here are some questions the security considerations section might address: 1. I use SRTP/IPsec/DTLS for my VoIP traffic and now that a motivation for a DCCP being proposed, what are the implications on the existing security protocols. Would they work without modifications or would there be any special considerations (for instance the DTLS draft has a paragraph on what might be different w.r.t. the DCCP vs. UDP). 2. TCP and UDP have different security considerations (e.g., reset attacks in TCP don't apply to UDP). Would a DCCP be similar to TCP or UDP in security issues? The answers may be obvious to folks active in this area, but not necessarily to an average reader. As Russ suggested in his comments, DoS considerations and FW traversal as noted in other parts of the draft might be repeated in the security considerations section as well. Nit: The abstract says the document is a historical record. In that case, please delete the sentence starting with "The current version of DCCP includes no multihoming ..." in Section 5 (for future proofing this document in the face of changes to the DCCP specification). |
2005-09-15
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
2005-09-15
|
03 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2005-09-14
|
03 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: As stated in the IANA Considerations section of this document, we understand that there are NO IANA Actions. |
2005-09-14
|
03 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: As stated in the IANA Considerations section of this document, we understand that there are NO IANA Actions. |
2005-09-14
|
03 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2005-09-13
|
03 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
2005-09-09
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] Very nice, well written document. The Security Considerations essentially say that there are no security considerations, but the authors raise several … [Ballot comment] Very nice, well written document. The Security Considerations essentially say that there are no security considerations, but the authors raise several security issues in the body of the document. The body of the document has discussion of DoS attacks, firewall traversal, and NAT traversal. I would rather see the Security Considerations section refer to these places. |
2005-09-09
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2005-09-08
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin |
2005-09-08
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Ballot has been issued by Allison Mankin |
2005-09-08
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Created "Approve" ballot |
2005-09-08
|
03 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2005-09-08
|
03 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2005-09-08
|
03 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2005-09-08
|
03 | Allison Mankin | AD Review comments were given at the mic during Paris meeting and handled by -02 -> -03 revision |
2005-09-08
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Note]: 'PROTO shepherd lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de' added by Allison Mankin |
2005-09-08
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-09-15 by Allison Mankin |
2005-09-08
|
03 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested by Allison Mankin |
2005-08-29
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Note field has been cleared by Allison Mankin |
2005-08-29
|
03 | Allison Mankin | I reviewed this during WGLC and gave verbal comments during the WG meeting. It is ready for the IESG at the next IESG agenda. |
2005-08-29
|
03 | Dinara Suleymanova | State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Dinara Suleymanova |
2005-08-24
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-problem-03.txt |
2005-08-23
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-problem-02.txt |
2005-06-28
|
03 | Allison Mankin | State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by Allison Mankin |
2005-06-28
|
03 | Allison Mankin | State Change Notice email list have been change to lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de, tphelan@sonusnet.com, floyd@icir.org from |
2005-06-28
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Note]: 'Imminently/in WGLC' added by Allison Mankin |
2005-06-28
|
03 | Allison Mankin | nd�of�2002-Oct,�as�it�is�completing working�group�last�call�-�I�still�have�expressed to�chair�and�not�widely�enough�some�vague�issue� about�whether�problem�could�embrace� a�few�more�apps�than�streaming�-�comment�owed. [Note�from�Allison] |
2005-06-28
|
03 | Allison Mankin | [Note]: 'End�of�2002-Oct,�as�it�is�completing working�group�last�call�-�I�still�have�expressed to�chair�and�not�widely�enough�some�vague�issue� about�whether�problem�could�embrace� a�few�more�apps�than�streaming�-�comment�owed. [Note�from�Allison]' added by Allison Mankin |
2005-06-24
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-problem-01.txt |
2005-05-26
|
03 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by IESG Secretary |
2002-11-11
|
03 | Scott Bradner | Shepherding AD has been changed to Mankin, Allison from Bradner, Scott |
2002-11-11
|
03 | Scott Bradner | Shepherding AD has been changed to Mankin, Allison from Bradner, Scott |
2002-11-11
|
03 | Scott Bradner | Shepherding AD has been changed to Bradner, Scott from Mankin, Allison |
2002-10-24
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None |
2002-10-24
|
03 | Allison Mankin | WG last call |
2002-10-24
|
03 | Allison Mankin | Draft Added by mankin |
2002-10-24
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-problem-00.txt |