Re: my issues with draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-lite-01.txt

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

>> it seems my comments on the draft, actually comments from many ops
>> directorate members, were too massive, so i have stashed them at
>> <http://psg.com/~randy/udp-lite.txt> and want to compress it to the
>> following
>> this proposes somne serious changes to udp without sufficient
>> documentation of the justification and needs, at least not
>> sufficient to convince some ip old timers.  it would be good if the
>> document could give clear and detailed justification so that the ip
>> purists and operators could understand why this is _really_ needed.
> formalistically, it's not changes to UDP, it's a modified version of UDP.
> not that it doesn't need justification, but you might want to change your 
> writeup so that people don't waste time trying to convince each other that 
> you haven't read the drafts properly.....

could someone tell me what the difference is between 'modified' and
'changed' in this context?  to quote from the document

   This document describes the UDP-Lite protocol, which is similar to
   UDP [RFC-768] ...

do you mean, "this is not changing udp, but rather creating a new
datagram protocol rather like udp?"  i.e., ops folk should not
worry that udp is being mucked up because this is a new and
different protocol, so it's ok?

randy