Re: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] Proliferation of encapsulations ...

On 5/21/15 10:23 AM, Larry Kreeger (kreeger) wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> Where you wrote "where there might already exist an encapsulation over IP
> or Ethernet." do you think it would be useful to name a couple of
> examples?  e.g. are you referring to GRE or something else?
GRE, but also IP-in-IP.
I'm a but concerned having examples in the document since it might be 
interpreted as those proposals/proponents doing something wrong. Such as 
misinterpretation would make it harder to do something cooperative down 
the road.

    Erik

>
>   - Larry
>
> On 5/21/15 10:12 AM, "Erik Nordmark" <nordmark@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Based on our discussion I propose adding this text to the scope section:
>>
>> "While the origin and focus of this document is the routing area and in
>> particular NVO3, SFC, and BIER, the considerations apply to other
>> encapsulations that are being defined in the IETF and elsewhere. There
>> seems to be an increase in the number of encapsulations being defined to
>> run over UDP, where there might already exist an encapsulation over IP
>> or Ethernet. Feedback on how these considerations apply in those
>> contexts is welcome."
>> Comments?
>>
>>
>> Once that is in place and the document is out I'll send a note to the
>> IESG to raise awareness.
>> In that note I'll include any examples we have. Is there something other
>> than draft-xu-softwire-ip-in-udp and draft-ietf-trill-over-ip that we
>> should use as examples?
>>
>> Based on how that goes I'll raise the "profileration of encapsulations"
>> with the IAB later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     Erik
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rtg-dt-encap-considerations mailing list
>> Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-encap-considerations
>