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

On 5/28/15 6:17 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
>
> 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)?
>
Xiaohu,
In -02 we added some text about the considerations for the first nibble 
over MPLS. But as the rest of the document this is phrased as a 
consideration and not a requirement.

> Does IP/UDP need a mandatory fragmentation capability on the tunnel layer?
>
That is a very good question. The IETF and Internet experience is that 
successful protocols are likely to be deployed outside of their initial 
target domain. So even if the initial target domain(s) don't need 
fragmentation it would seem prudent to at least include the option to be 
able to do fragmentation and reassembly. (Likewise goes for having 
sufficient extensibility to add higher levels of security should the 
protocol be used in different domains.)

Regards,
     Erik

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