> -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:04 PM > To: Xuxiaohu; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [bess] Request for WG adoption of draft-xu-bess-encaps-udp//RE: > Why transform draft-xu-softwire-encaps-udp to draft-xu-bess-encaps-udp > > > > So you want an I-D that describes how to use the code point to > > > achieve a variety of things. That is potentially useful, but I > > > haven't read that text > in > > >your I-D. > > > > I can update the text accordingly soon. Of course, it would be great > > if you > could > > propose any text. > > Thank you for the offer, but I don't personally have any desire to see this > written, > so I will not be suggesting text. > > > > But please understand that the code point is already allocated (and > > > I > shouldn't > > > be surprised to hear it is coded and deployed). So it is way too > > > late to say > that > > > the wrong document asked for the code point. > > > > How about proceeding draft-xu-bess-encaps-udp quickly and then making > > it to take over the allocated code point? After all, the draft is very > > short and > more > > importantly the IETF community has reached a consensus on the > > necessity of allocating a code point for UDP, it seems not a problem > > to proceed it quickly, IMHO. > > I don't understand at all. > The code point has been allocated. We're done. We don't need any more work. > It's done.
If you admit the fact that the wrong doc asked for the code point, I'm a bit confused why you still insist on that wrong action? Just because there is a strict IETF rule that the code point reference is not allowed to be corrected in any case or any other reasons? Sorry for such a direct question. I just want to learn the IETF code point related rules in passing. Xiaohu > Adrian _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
