Hi WG， I support this adoption. The draft focuses squarely on "what routing systems need from IPv6 tunneling"—covering path selection, capability propagation, and coexistence with existing protocols—all of which directly align with RTGWG’s mission to optimize internet routing architectures. I think its content free of unnecessary overlap with the INT Area.
Best regards, Pang Ran From: Yingzhen Qu Date: 2025-06-28 07:49 To: RTGWG; rtgwg-chairs Subject: [rtgwg] WG Adoption Call for draft-li-rtgwg-gip6-protocol-ext-requirements Dear RTGWG, This email starts a Working Group Adoption call for: Scenarios and Protocol Extension Requirements of a Generalized IPv6 Tunnel https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-rtgwg-gip6-protocol-ext-requirements/ The draft was presented at IETF122, and a poll was done after the presentation: Poll for "Should the WG work on a general tunneling mechanism that supports iOAM etc.?" Yes(24) No(11) No Opinion(7) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-rtgwg-202503200230/ Please review the document and send your support or objection to the mailing list. Supporting means that you believe that the WG should work on this topic and the draft is on the right track. Comments and suggestions are welcome. The adoption call will run for three weeks considering the upcoming IETF and end on July 18th. Authors and contributors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to the draft. Thanks, Yingzhen
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
