Randy, okay, let tsvwg adopt draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap, and let's get consensus on it. And then the authors can adopt that consensus for mpls-in-udp, which overlaps in authorship...
thanks, Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: Randy Bush [[email protected]] Sent: 09 January 2014 07:51 To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE: [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG) > Because they specify zero UDP checksums, > I oppose publication of draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp in its current form > I oppose tsvwg adoption of draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap in its current > form. > I oppose the IETF lisp documents. lloyd, i think i understand your position. but i disagree with preventing wg adoption of draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap, mainly because i strongly see wg adoption as how we get to discuss and work on a document, not as approval of the document. as david said, i think we need to discuss it so we can decide if it should be fixed. to do so, we have to adopt it. randy _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
