Re: GRE specification going to last call

[David Meyer <dmm@cisco.com>]

	Tim,

	Thanks for the sharp editorial eye (other note).

> There don't seem to be implications, as far as I can see, for the UDLR 
> spec; apart from protocol types.
> 
> This was quite loosely defined in 1701:
>   "In general... additional values may be defined in other documents."
> but gre-update-02 is rather stricter:
>   "These protocol types are defined in [RFC1700]... and in [ETYPES]."
> 
> This may limit some scope for UDLR implementations which want to use GRE, 
> but use a MAC type which doesn't have a number, e.g. ETSI MPE, which I 
> believe Patrick brought up as an issue some time ago. This doesn't really 
> affect UDLR itself though.


	It would be nice to work around this, so long as it doesn't 
	result in an new version of GRE (we're trying to avoid that
	here). On the other hand, one of the purpuses of this
	was to provide a standards track version of GRE for use by
	protocols like UDLR and MSDP.
> 
> Just as a note to those concerned, the new draft also says "IANA SHOULD NOT 
> encourage the assignment of additional ETHER TYPES (GRE Protocol Types) for 
> use with GRE."

	Do you see a problem with this? If we do another version
	of GRE, than we can revisit the use of Ethernet DIX.

	Dave