--- zzzz-none-000/linux-2.6.19.2/net/dccp/ccids/Kconfig	2007-01-10 19:10:37.000000000 +0000
+++ davinci-8020-5505/linux-2.6.19.2/net/dccp/ccids/Kconfig	2007-01-11 07:38:19.000000000 +0000
@@ -22,11 +22,11 @@
 	  for lost packets, would prefer CCID 2 to CCID 3.  On-line games may
 	  also prefer CCID 2.
 
-	  CCID 2 is further described in RFC 4341,
-	  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4341.txt
+	  CCID 2 is further described in:
+	  http://www.icir.org/kohler/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-ccid2-10.txt
 
-	  This text was extracted from RFC 4340 (sec. 10.1),
-	  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4340.txt
+	  This text was extracted from:
+	  http://www.icir.org/kohler/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-spec-13.txt
 
 	  If in doubt, say M.
 
@@ -53,14 +53,15 @@
 	  suitable than CCID 2 for applications such streaming media where a
 	  relatively smooth sending rate is of importance.
 
-	  CCID 3 is further described in RFC 4342,
-	  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4342.txt
+	  CCID 3 is further described in:
+
+	  http://www.icir.org/kohler/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-ccid3-11.txt.
 
 	  The TFRC congestion control algorithms were initially described in
 	  RFC 3448.
 
-	  This text was extracted from RFC 4340 (sec. 10.2),
-	  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4340.txt
+	  This text was extracted from:
+	  http://www.icir.org/kohler/dccp/draft-ietf-dccp-spec-13.txt
 	  
 	  If in doubt, say M.