This is my last email on this subject. > > > 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.
If. But I don't admit any such thing. The registry is First Come First Served. The code point was requested according to that policy. A document was provided as a reference (and that document provides further reference to [I-D.ietf-mpls-in-udp]) The first objective is to allocate the code point - done The second objective is to give a reference to a document that describes the use of the code point - done You are proposing a new I-D that provides more description and use cases. Sure. Knock yourself out. I'm sure people will be happy to discuss the content of your document. Adrian _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
