difference between C++11 rvalue references && and D's proposed rvalue reference?

[Timothee Cour]

What would be the difference between C++11's rvalue reference && (see
for example http://thbecker.net/articles/rvalue_references/section_03.html)
and D's proposed rvalue references (eg http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP36) ?

So far I only saw C++'s const & mentioned, but C++11's && seems pretty close.

Which brings yet another naming proposal for D's rvalue reference, namely &&.