Lloyd and Randy, With respect to draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp, this is why we have IETF last calls, so thanks for the comments. We did take the precaution of sending this I-D for an early TSV Directorate review because of the concern about a number of factors and the overlap with tsvwg work, but the review came back "clean". Of course, such a review is just one person, so this conversation is good. Wrt zero checksum, where do you stand on nested checksums? There is some claim that they represent a waste of processing. I am not convinced by that when each layer is using dedicated hardware (that can presumably process checksums at line speed), but I am interested in the consequences for cheap hardware and for software implementations (as have been claimed to be some of the motivations for this work). Other TSV-related issues that surely pop up are: - allocation of ports for foo-in-UDP - congestion control Please note that there are a number of I-Ds that you missed in your broad sweep of "I am opposed". You should probably look at the NVGRE and VXLAN work (which I think is lurking around the NVO3 working group) because that is also looking at UDP encaps of a tunnelling protocol. Thanks, Adrian Health warnings: I am responsible AD for draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp I am a co-author of the gre-in-udp draft. > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: 09 January 2014 08:07 > To: randy@xxxxxxx > Cc: gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; david.black@xxxxxxx; > tsvwg@xxxxxxxx; jnc@xxxxxxx; lisp@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE: > [tsvwg] Milestones changed for tsvwg WG) > > Randy, > > okay, let tsvwg adopt draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap, and let's get > consensus on it. And then the authors can adopt that consensus for mpls-in-udp, > which overlaps in authorship... > > thanks, > > Lloyd Wood > http://about.me/lloydwood > ________________________________________ > From: Randy Bush [randy@xxxxxxx] > Sent: 09 January 2014 07:51 > To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) > Cc: david.black@xxxxxxx; gorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxxxx; > jnc@xxxxxxx; lisp@xxxxxxxx; tsvwg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp was RE: gre-in-udp draft (was: RE: [tsvwg] > Milestones changed for tsvwg WG) > > > Because they specify zero UDP checksums, > > I oppose publication of draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp in its current form > > I oppose tsvwg adoption of draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap in its current > form. > > I oppose the IETF lisp documents. > > lloyd, > > i think i understand your position. but i disagree with preventing wg > adoption of draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap, mainly because i strongly > see wg adoption as how we get to discuss and work on a document, not as > approval of the document. as david said, i think we need to discuss it > so we can decide if it should be fixed. to do so, we have to adopt it. > > randy > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls