Carlos From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 10:34 PM To: Wassim Haddad Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03
Wasim, Juan Carlos, Back to your original request, I do not support adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp. I also did not support draft-xu-softwire-ip-in-udp. I do not believe there’s a case for this new tunnel type. I also believe that a deeper look at the potential problem space can yield better solutions, as opposed to a solution looking for a problem. The problem associated with the LB approach as proposed in [RFC5640<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5640>] is obvious. In other words, there is no need for looking for at all. With regard to whether or not the IP-in-UDP encapsulation is the best solution to that problem, it is another thing. Xiaohu Thanks, — Carlos Pignataro. On May 19, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Wassim Haddad <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
