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

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net> Thu, 21 May 2015 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@sonic.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAF01A006B for <rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l0e1SeEVOoZ7 for <rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B7A41A0075 for <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 May 2015 10:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t4LHCnd4008151 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 21 May 2015 10:12:49 -0700
Message-ID: <555E1212.5020300@sonic.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 10:12:50 -0700
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org" <Rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVbTO3J4LdHQ2Y9hurlrZFz8RWz+HXnJGtek/U5qmtDc4gfOZliU7rDleaOKqa1JVl9Ptd9W0U55pHIyQkOIYaAd
X-Sonic-ID: C;6nuum9z/5BGamDDDQUxNRQ== M;CsnDm9z/5BGamDDDQUxNRQ==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/gAqeWDUsbiECVFmwDqHcWbFkYQE>
Subject: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] Proliferation of encapsulations ...
X-BeenThere: rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Design Team on Encapsulation Considerations discussion list <rtg-dt-encap-considerations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dt-encap-considerations>, <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dt-encap-considerations/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dt-encap-considerations>, <mailto:rtg-dt-encap-considerations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 17:13:38 -0000

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."

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.