Re: Draft Review request - EUDP

Lars Eggert <> Wed, 01 December 2010 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0773A6C56 for <>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 03:51:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.054
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.054 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.545, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BMG1NJF7SZlx for <>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 03:51:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185943A6B3F for <>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 03:51:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id oB1Bqqcg021014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:52:53 +0200
Subject: Re: Draft Review request - EUDP
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.4 at
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-33--635452824"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Lars Eggert <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:52:39 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:52:45 +0200 (EET)
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:51:42 -0000


On 2010-12-1, at 13:25, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> I have recently made a draft which, IMO, will be interesting
> for the WG. You can find it here:
> Could you please review it?

This is not a useful proposal. Why? UDP is IP plus ports and a checksum. There is no feature negotiation, no state machine to be extended, etc. *at the protocol level*.

(Sure, applications using UDP have these things. But they can *already* put whatever they like into the payload anyway. There is no need for a common spec.)

Plus, by using a different IP protocol number, it is pretty much guaranteed that middleboxes will simply drop this traffic.


PS: Meta comment: You have submitted quite a number of IDs lately ( I really do applaud your enthusiasm. But the vast majority of your IDs to me appear to be rather pointless. I encourage you to follow some WGs that interest you most more closely, in order to learn where your contributions would be most useful. I'm being blunt here - please don't be offended. I don't want you to turn away from the IETF in frustration because your contributions don't get traction; I want your contributions to matter.