> Thanks for making that suggestion. Although RFC5512 (i.e., > draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi) and RFC5566 (i.e., > draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-ipsec) have been originated from Softwire WG and > the current Softwire WG charter (https://tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/charters) > still state that "BGP and other routing and signaling protocols developed in > this > group will be reviewed jointly with the proper working groups and other > workings that may take interest (e.g. IDR, L3VPN, PIM, LDP, SAAG, etc)", your > above suggestion, together with Softwire co-chairs' claim of last Friday that > the
s/last Friday/this Friday. > softwire WG is going to shut down and therefore it would not be a right place > to > pursue this draft anymore, seem to be a joint statement that any future work > related to BGP Encapsulation SAFI should be discussed in the BESS WG, rather > than the Softwire WG. Thanks again for clarifying the confusion. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
