Support the WG adoption of this draft and fully agree with Alia that it would be much constructive to include more consideration around MPLS and IP/UDP . For instance, does the MPLS encapsulation need an explicit protocol identifier field to indicate the payload type in the long run (e.g., completely eliminate the trouble of first nibble issue for any future MPLS payload type)? Does IP/UDP need a mandatory fragmentation capability on the tunnel layer?
Best regards, Xiaohu From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:17 PM To: Jeff Tantsura Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-rtg-dt-encap-02 I support adopting this draft in RTGWG. I do hope to see the WG expand it to include more considerations around MPLS as well as IP/UDP. Thanks, Alia On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi RTGWG, The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt draft-rtg-dt-encap-02 as working group document. Please indicate support or no-support by June 8, 2015. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to the document. Cheers, Jeff & Chris _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
