Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
draft-ietf-dccp-spec-13

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

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

(Harald Alvestrand; former steering group member) No Objection

Reviewed by Scott Brim, Gen-ART

Review (positive) in document log.

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

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.

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

  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/

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection

(Thomas Narten; former steering group member) No Objection