RE: Request for WG adoption of draft-rtg-dt-encap-02

Support the WG adoption of this draft and fully agree with Alia that it would be much constructive to include more consideration around MPLS and IP/UDP . For instance, does the MPLS encapsulation need an explicit protocol identifier field to indicate the payload type in the long run (e.g., completely eliminate the trouble of first nibble issue for any future MPLS payload type)? Does IP/UDP need a mandatory fragmentation capability on the tunnel layer?

Best regards,
Xiaohu

From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:17 PM
To: Jeff Tantsura
Cc: rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-rtg-dt-encap-02

I support adopting this draft in RTGWG.
I do hope to see the WG expand it to include more considerations around MPLS
as well as IP/UDP.

Thanks,
Alia

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com<mailto:jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi RTGWG,

The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt draft-rtg-dt-encap-02 as
working group document.

Please indicate support or no-support by June 8, 2015.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to
this email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will
not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each
author and each individual that has contributed to the document.

Cheers,
Jeff & Chris

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg