I, for one, am opposed. I have two issues. One is summarized fairly succinctly in RFC 1326; there are technical issues in mutual encapsulation. The other is in the general form of "good grief". I don't think the draft adequately argues for yet-another-tunnel format.It tells how to do it and asks for a port number, but the arguments for doing it don't make sense to me.
> On May 19, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Wassim Haddad <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear all, > > The authors of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 (“Encapsulating IP in UDP”) have > requested that the working group adopt this work as a WG work item. > So far, WG chairs have not seen widespread support and considering that lack > of opposition does not qualify as support, we’re starting a working group > adoption call until June 3rd. > > If you consider that the draft should be adopted as a WG work item, please > indicate the reason. > > > Regards, > > Wassim & Juan Carlos > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
