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(_at_)psg(_dot_)com]
Sent: 09 January 2014 07:51
To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)com;
gorry(_at_)erg(_dot_)abdn(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; jnc(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu; lisp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
tsvwg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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