AW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-00.txt

<> Tue, 07 July 2015 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA0D1A9131 for <>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 23:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.86
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xm-KdQkJDYPU for <>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 23:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 150E21A887D for <>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 23:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2015 08:56:34 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,421,1432591200"; d="scan'208";a="290477215"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 07 Jul 2015 08:56:34 +0200
Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([]) by ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 08:56:34 +0200
From: <>
To: <>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 08:56:32 +0200
Subject: AW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-00.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-00.txt
Thread-Index: AdC4JbRnEp4PmqhHSaeB16MVYdDQzAAWmt4w
Message-ID: <CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F50529304649@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 06:56:41 -0000


I only read QoS and scope related stuff. I couldn't 
figure out, how relevant MPLS is. If MPLS is relevant, 
RFC 3270 (MPLS Support of DiffServ) may be added as 
reference in the QoS chapter. It picks up RFC 2983 
specifications and adds the MPLS specific Short Pipe 
tunnel model. The latter impacts tunneling QoS options.



-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
Von: rtgwg [] Im Auftrag von
Gesendet: Montag, 6. Juli 2015 21:55
Betreff: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap-00.txt

A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

    Title         : Encapsulation Considerations

    Author(s)     : E. Nordmark, et al
    Filename      : draft-ietf-rtgwg-dt-encap
    Pages         : 42 
    Date          : 2015-07-06 
   The IETF Routing Area director has chartered a design team to look at
   common issues for the different data plane encapsulations being
   discussed in the NVO3 and SFC working groups and also in the BIER
   BoF, and also to look at the relationship between such encapsulations
   in the case that they might be used at the same time.  The purpose of
   this design team is to discover, discuss and document considerations
   across the different encapsulations in the different WGs/BoFs so that
   we can reduce the number of wheels that need to be reinvented in the

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft.