I have read this and I support adoption. I have some comments that I can share in follow-ups in the WG.
-Nathan On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 5:44 AM Wang Guilin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Support to adoption +1. > > > > A few minor comments. > > Abstract: Better to give the full name of DSCP for its first time appearance. > Actually, the full name of DSCP (Differentiated Services Field Codepoints) > has also mentioned in the main text as well. > The title of this document contains “Differentiated Services Field > Codepoints”. Is “Differentiated Services Field Codepoints” the same as DSCP? > Section 2: "[RFC4301], Section 4.1 ... " => "Section 4.1 of [RFC4301] ... "? > Similar phrases appear several times. > > > > Guilin > > From: Daniel Migault <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, 3 August 2026 11:22 pm > To: Valery Smyslov <[email protected]> > Cc: Tero Kivinen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: [IPsec] Re: Call for adoption: draft-mglt-ipsecme-dscp-np-05 (Ends > 2026-08-15) > > > > Hi, > > > > As a co-author I support the adoption of the draft. > > > > Yours, > Daniel > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 4:25 AM Valery Smyslov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I read the draft and I think that it can be adopted. > > Regards, > Valery. > > > This message starts a ipsecme WG Call for Adoption of: > > draft-mglt-ipsecme-dscp-np-05 > > > > This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-08-15 > > > > Abstract: > > This document outlines the DSCP Notification Payload, which, during a > > CREATE_CHILD_SA Exchange, explicitly indicates the DSCP code points > > that will be encapsulated in the newly established tunnel. This > > document updates RFC 4301. > > > > Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support > > adoption > > of this Internet-Draft by the ipsecme WG. Comments to explain your > > preference > > are greatly appreciated. Please reply to all recipients of this message and > > include this message in your response. > > > > Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual > > Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2]. > > Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the > > provisions > > of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any. > > Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be > > found at [3]. > > > > Thank you. > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ > > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ > > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-ipsecme-dscp-np/ > > > > There is also an HTML version available at: > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mglt-ipsecme-dscp-np-05.html > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-mglt-ipsecme-dscp-np-05 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > > -- > > Daniel Migault > > Ericsson > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
