Re: Draft Review request - EUDP

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

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:
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-eudp/?include_text=1
> 
> 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.

Lars

PS: Meta comment: You have submitted quite a number of IDs lately (http://tools.ietf.org/id/yevstifeyev). 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.