Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
To: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>, Edward Crabbe <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:47:49 -0500
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>

The problem with taht paragraph is that it assumes that the UDP 
encapsulator knows what the payload is.
It seems to me that one could easily be applying the UDP in any one of a 
number of cases where the payload will not be known.
So the requirement in the paragraph seems at best difficult to meet.

And has been noted, this seems to place an expectation on UDP 
encapsulated MPLS that is not present for MPLS itself, when the traffic 
is not known to be IP.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/10/14 3:41 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Edward Crabbe <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Let the encapsulated transport protocols take care of the congestion
>> end-to-end.
>
> Xu Xiaohu proposed a good paragraph:
> https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=75392&tid=1389386424
>