From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eddie Kohler Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 04:29:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] [DCCP]: Update Documentation Message-Id: <4563D247.6090508@cs.ucla.edu> List-Id: References: <20061120205748.GI5246@mandriva.com> In-Reply-To: <20061120205748.GI5246@mandriva.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dccp@vger.kernel.org Hi Arnaldo, Ian, Actually, DCCP's status is Proposed Standard. FYI. Eddie Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > This patch just updates DCCP documentation a bit. > > Signed-off-by: Ian McDonald > Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > --- > Documentation/networking/dccp.txt | 23 ++++++++--------------- > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/networking/dccp.txt b/Documentation/networking/dccp.txt > index c2328c8..1910d09 100644 > --- a/Documentation/networking/dccp.txt > +++ b/Documentation/networking/dccp.txt > @@ -19,21 +19,17 @@ for real time and multimedia traffic. > > It has a base protocol and pluggable congestion control IDs (CCIDs). > > -It is at draft RFC status and the homepage for DCCP as a protocol is at: > - http://www.icir.org/kohler/dcp/ > +It is at experimental RFC status and the homepage for DCCP as a protocol is at: > + http://www.read.cs.ucla.edu/dccp/ > > Missing features > ======== > > The DCCP implementation does not currently have all the features that are in > -the draft RFC. > +the RFC. > > -In particular the following are missing: > -- CCID2 support > -- feature negotiation > - > -When testing against other implementations it appears that elapsed time > -options are not coded compliant to the specification. > +The known bugs are at: > + http://linux-net.osdl.org/index.php/TODO#DCCP > > Socket options > ======= > @@ -107,9 +103,6 @@ seq_window = 100 > Notes > ==> > -SELinux does not yet have support for DCCP. You will need to turn it off or > -else you will get EACCES. > - > -DCCP does not travel through NAT successfully at present. This is because > -the checksum covers the psuedo-header as per TCP and UDP. It should be > -relatively trivial to add Linux NAT support for DCCP. > +DCCP does not travel through NAT successfully at present on many boxes. This is > +because the checksum covers the psuedo-header as per TCP and UDP. Linux NAT > +support for DCCP has been added.