Re: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] draft-rtg-dt-encap-02 for review

Albert Tian <> Thu, 21 May 2015 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258591A1B7F for <>; Thu, 21 May 2015 08:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id chiMU_2FaRj0 for <>; Thu, 21 May 2015 08:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60CEC1A875E for <>; Thu, 21 May 2015 08:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79086d000001909-f7-555d9bf40976
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FD.85.06409.4FB9D555; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:48:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:59:14 -0400
From: Albert Tian <>
To: Erik Nordmark <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] draft-rtg-dt-encap-02 for review
Thread-Index: AQHQjm/2rGOECQBHaEuNm+yV9JU+cJ2Gbv0A
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 15:59:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1834D983ADEACAlbertTianericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonSvfr7NhQg01TmS1edm5gs5jQ94rJ gcljyZKfTB5Pu5tZApiiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDLu7f3DVLBCq2LWj3a2BsYbyl2MnBwSAiYS nc8PMELYYhIX7q1nA7GFBI4ySiyfzdHFyAVkL2eUaLx/H6yITUBH4tXsB2C2iEC5xIaOF0wg trCAt8SbLeuYIeI+Ei/mdEDVGEl07GxhB7FZBFQlHq7+AVbPK2Am8Xz3biCbA2iBhsSq244g YU4BTYnfc4+ClTMC3fP91BqwcmYBcYlbT+YzQdwpILFkz3lmCFtU4uXjf6wgtqiAnsTK601s EHEliUlLz7FC9EZLTHm7nhliraDEyZlPWCYwis5CMnYWkrJZSMog4joSC3Z/YoOwtSWWLXzN DGOfOfAYqtda4vqT3ShqFjByrGLkKC1OLctNNzLcxAiMtWMSbI47GBd8sjzEKMDBqMTDu+B0 TKgQa2JZcWXuIUZpDhYlcd6LqiGhQgLpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOanFhxiZODilGhib95gJzXOO ls1ocHu+L/Df5y1PjvxclB3ZNdX0zsJf/GVvt81f/Zv/mOPbHUt3vd44c+vzyNSGVQ9j5S8t SVzD/nauiab3PXFd/m5VxuhK2ZlJrumTFkZvZ8/+ytC+aBOH9IaSw7O8tC8y8r26OzU6xS+2 4biKmO02aw6u2PnOMqJXrgWx6vMqsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAqfTrCpYCAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] draft-rtg-dt-encap-02 for review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Design Team on Encapsulation Considerations discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 15:59:18 -0000

Hi Erik

Just a comment on the control word topic: I think the document looks pretty good in the next protocol section, maybe with a minor suggestion for the following sentence at the top of page 10:

That behavior places some constraints on other
payloads carried over MPLS and some protocol define an initial
control word in the payload with a value of zero in its first nibble [RFC4385] to avoid confusion with IPv4
and IPv6 payload headers.


On 5/14/15, 11:00 AM, "Erik Nordmark" <<>> wrote:

Attached is -02 of the document.

Albert said he would check whether there are some additional text we
want to add about the control word, but I've completed the other edits
we have discussed.
is up to date with the issues, but doesn't have the exact same proposed
text changes as the I-D.

I edited the attached diffs to remove the diffs related to the change in

Please review the changes, and check whether there are additional things
we should lift out to the "In summary" bulleted lists.

It would be good to submit this next week - if anything controversial
shows up we can discuss it on the call next Thursday.