We would like to apply a time slot to represent a new draft
draft-guo-softwire-sc-discovery. It proposes a general softwire (tunnel)
concentrator discovery mechanisms.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-guo-softwire-sc-discovery-00
Many thanks,
Sheng
> -Original Message-
> From: softwir
To: shengji...@huawei.com
> Cc: guo...@huawei.com
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-guo-softwire-sc-discovery-00
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-guo-softwire-sc-discovery-00.txt
> has been successfuly submitted by Sheng Jiang and posted to
> the IETF r
>From the title of this draft, it only serves the dual-stack lite scenario.
For
support generic tunnel scenarios, we have recently proposed a new draft
draft-guo-softwire-sc-discovery
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-guo-softwire-sc-discovery-00
to softwire WG. It proposes a general softwire (tun
To: shengji...@huawei.com
> Cc: guo...@huawei.com
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-guo-softwire-auto-gre-00
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-guo-softwire-auto-gre-00.txt has
> been successfuly submitted by Sheng Jiang and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
>
Dear chairs,
We would like to talk about Auto GRE
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-guo-softwire-auto-gre-00 and Softwire
Concentrator Discovery Using DHCP
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-guo-softwire-sc-discovery. For Softwire
Concentrator Discovery Using DHCP draft, we are working on a update 02
> -Original Message-
> From: Sri Gundavelli
> As I said and to repeat one more time, I'm not convinced
> about that use-case. This is not a legacy issue, there are no
> deployed applications currently operating in that mode. We
> talked to many operators, every one is planning to use I
entrator-00
>
>
> A new version of I-D,
> draft-guo-radext-softwire-concentrator-00.txt has been
> successfully submitted by Sheng Jiang and posted to the IETF
> repository.
>
> Filename: draft-guo-radext-softwire-concentrator
> Revision: 00
> T
Hi, Alain & David,
We'd like to have a time slot for a presentation in IETF 79.
1. Draft name: draft-guo-softwire-sc-discovery
2. Time requested: 5~10 mins
3. Presenter: Sheng Jiang
This is the fourth time we present this draft. This draft has also been
reviewed by DH
has been
> successfully submitted by Sheng Jiang and posted to the IETF
> repository.
>
> Filename: draft-guo-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib
> Revision: 00
> Title: RADIUS Attribute for 6rd
> Creation_date: 2010-10-18
> WG ID:
Hi, Alain & David,
We'd like to have a time slot for a presentation in IETF 79.
1. Draft name: draft-guo-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-00
2. Time requested: 5 mins
3. Presenter: Sheng Jiang
Best regards,
Sheng
> -Original Message-
> From: softwires-b
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-00
>
>
> A new version of I-D,
> draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-00.txt has been
> successfully submitted by Sheng Jiang and posted to the IETF
> repository.
>
> Filename: dra
m
> > > Cc: guo...@huawei.com
> > > Subject: New Version Notification for
> > > draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-00
> > >
> > >
> > > A new version of I-D,
> > > draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-00.txt has been
> suc
ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-radius...@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan DeKok
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:51 PM
> To: Sheng Jiang
> Cc: 'Bernard Aboba'; radius...@ops.ietf.org; softwires@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Reviewing is needed, FW: New Version
> Notificati
Hi, Alan,
"IPv6-6rd-Configuration" sounds good for us. We will use it in the next version.
Thanks and best regards,
Sheng
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan DeKok [mailto:al...@deployingradius.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 6:29 PM
> To: Sheng Jian
The authors have updated this draft according to reviewing from RADEXT work
group. All received
comments are addressed.
Furthre comments and reviewing are welcome.
Best regards,
Dayong & Sheng
> -Original Message-
> From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org
> [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.or
> -Original Message-
> From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Yong Cui
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 10:21 PM
> To: softwires@ietf.org
> Cc: Yong Cui
> Subject: [Softwires] New working group documents
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Following our rough
Support the adoption for 1, 2, 3, 5.
Sheng
> -Original Message-
> From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Yong Cui
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 10:21 PM
> To: softwires@ietf.org
> Cc: Yong Cui
> Subject: [Softwires] New working group docume
Hi, Stefan,
Thanks for your information. Since we are not really radius experts, if you can
suggested the specific format or modification we should make in the draft, it
would be real appreciated.
Best regards,
Sheng
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [so
alid. They are actually on
parameter.
So, looks for me, the format in 04 version is already the best choice.
Cheers,
Sheng
From: Stefan Winter [stefan.win...@restena.lu]
Sent: 21 December 2011 22:12
To: Peter Deacon
Cc: Sheng Jiang; Alan DeKok; GuoDayong
Yu & Peter
> -Original Message-
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 3:04 PM
> To: Sheng Jiang
> Cc: pet...@iea-software.com; Eleven Fu(Yu); Sheng Jiang
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-softwire
I support WG adoption for this series of documents. As a complementarity, we
have written a MAP Radius document:
"RADIUS Attribute for MAP"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-00
This document defines Radius attribute for MAP mechanism. It provides just
enough information
> > If you intend to present in Paris, please send Yong and I a request
> by 3/7.
>
> on behalf of the MAP design team I would like to request a set of slots
> to present the results of the DT effort.
> draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03
> draft-mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option-02
> dra
Hi, Softwirers,
I get very confused when I walked out the Softwire meeting this morning. Why
did we only talk about making choice between 4rd-U and MAP? There are also
several other stateless solutions, too. As far as I recalled, the Softwire WG
have NOT decided to drop them at all. They should
Without any prejudgement, we are going to implement 4rd-u and do operational
tests. If there are any architecture conflict with the basic IPv6 archtecture,
we would like to propose modification for 4rd-u design. In principle, we have
no any interests to change the current IPv6 architecture at al
> I also followed the discussion. I appreciate both teams bought up the
> technical details for both designs. To be honest, I fail to see which
> one is better than other (yet). I like the fact that 4rd-u can do what
> MAP-T does w/o introducing any encap overhead. But I understand the
> concerns o
enough for operations. IETF does not
have to choose one by now. And, these two solutions are not necessary to be a
same pace.
Best regards,
Sheng
From: Maoke [mailto:fib...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 3:24 PM
To: Sheng Jiang
Cc: Lee, Yiu; Liubing (Leo); Simon Perreault; softwires
> On 4/9/12 8:17 AM, Sheng Jiang wrote:
> > We would like to see both solution published. So that, operators can
> > choose according to their own networks and preference.
>
> Disagree. This would hypothetically be nice for operators to have a
> choice, but vendors (looks
, 2012 5:39 PM
To: Sheng Jiang
Cc: Lee, Yiu; Liubing (Leo); Simon Perreault; softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ 4rd-U as transparent as
MAP-E
2012/4/9 Sheng Jiang mailto:jiangsh...@huawei.com>>
Please allow me to clarify myself: I support both MAP and
, 2012 5:39 PM
To: Sheng Jiang
Cc: Lee, Yiu; Liubing (Leo); Simon Perreault; softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ 4rd-U as transparent as
MAP-E
2012/4/9 Sheng Jiang mailto:jiangsh...@huawei.com>>
Please allow me to clarify myself: I support both MAP and
, 2012 5:39 PM
To: Sheng Jiang
Cc: Lee, Yiu; Liubing (Leo); Simon Perreault; softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ 4rd-U as transparent as
MAP-E
2012/4/9 Sheng Jiang mailto:jiangsh...@huawei.com>>
Please allow me to clarify myself: I support both MAP and
Support adopt this draft as WG draft.
Sheng Jiang
> -Original Message-
> From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Yong Cui
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:43 PM
> To: Softwires WG
> Cc: Yong Cui
> Subject: [Softwires]
The document looks mature enough for being advanced.
Sheng Jiang
> -Original Message-
> From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Yong Cui
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:32 PM
> To: softwires@ietf.org
> Cc: Yong Cui
> Su
The document looks mature for being advanced.
Sheng Jiang
> -Original Message-
> From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Yong Cui
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:31 PM
> To: softwires@ietf.org
> Cc: Yong Cui
> Subject: [So
Support adoption.
Sheng
> -Original Message-
> From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 12:34 PM
> To: Softwires WG
> Cc: Yong Cui
> Subject: [Softwires] Call for adoption of
> draft-mdt-softwire-map-
This email confirms my personal support for MAP-E as WG consensus from
Vancouver meeting.
The chairs and ADs did a great job to move us forward. It was not easy to make
any decisions under the pressure giving the long debate we were in. But the
most important thing is the WG need a decision to
Thanks, Yong. All of them have been corrected. A new version has been submitted.
Best regards,
Sheng
>-Original Message-
>From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
>Behalf Of Yong Cui
>Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:46 AM
>To: softwires@ietf.org
>Subject:
Hi, Suresh,
I did raise my hand for both questions back to Vancouver and it remains.
Best regards,
Sheng
>-Original Message-
>From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
>Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
>Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:45 PM
>To: Softwires WG
>From: Maglione Roberta [mailto:roberta.magli...@telecomitalia.it]
>Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 10:09 PM
>To: 'Leaf Yeh'; Sheng Jiang
>Cc: softwires@ietf.org; dh...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [Softwires] Last Call:
>
>(RADIUS Attribute for 6rd) to Proposed Sta
We did present draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-02 in Atlanta and continue
working on it.
Since you state “there are many codes still missing”, if you can give me a
detailed mail to explain what is missing, it might be very good contributions.
Many thanks and best regards,
Sheng
From: softwire
+1 for support.
Sheng
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Qiong
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 11:41 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan
Cc: Softwires WG; Yong Cui; Ralph Droms
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Second working group last call for
draft-ietf-softwire-publ
Support. It is an useful document.
Sheng
>-Original Message-
>From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
>Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
>Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:14 AM
>To: Softwires WG
>Subject: [Softwires] Call for confirming the adoption of
>draft-cui-
rd)
> Author(s) : Remi Despres
> Sheng Jiang
> Reinaldo Penno
> Yiu Lee
> Gang Chen
> Maoke Chen
> Filename: draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-05.
: Rémi Després [mailto:despres.r...@laposte.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:04 PM
>To: Sheng Jiang
>Cc: Softwires WG
>Subject: 4rd update concerning NAT64+
>
>Dear Sheng,
>
>This is to confirm on the WG list what I discussed with you concerning 4rd and
>NAT64+.
>
>
Support for advance.
Sheng
>-Original Message-
>From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
>Behalf Of Liubing (Leo)
>Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 3:54 PM
>To: Suresh Krishnan; Softwires WG
>Cc: Yong Cui; draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-...@tools.ietf.org
>Subject: Re:
Support the adoption as coauthor. The MIB of map is helpful for us vendors.
Particularly when there are multiple MAP BRs from different vendors, the
standard MAP MIB makes them be able to interoperation with universal management.
Cheers,
Sheng
>-Original Message-
>From: softwires-boun.
Hi, Dave,
Thanks so much for your review. We are working on your comments and will make
an update version in one or two week time. When the new version ready, we will
write to you privately for confirmation whether your comments have been
properly addressed.
Best regards,
Sheng
From: softwir
I also support advancing this document. It is mature now.
Best regards,
Sheng
>-Original Message-
>From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Suresh
>Krishnan
>Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:46 PM
>To: Softwires WG
>Cc: Yong Cui
>Subject: [Softwires] Working gro
ftwires Working Group of the IETF.
>
>Title : IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - a Stateless
>Solution (4rd)
>Authors : Remi Despres
> Sheng Jiang
> Reinaldo Penno
>
This draft did pass the last WGLC. The later modification came from MIB doctor
review and the modification of depending document NAT-MIB. This second last
WGLC is necessary giving these new modifications. I support the modifications
and moving the document forward.
Best regards,
Sheng
>-O
This document is mature. I support to move it forward.
Best regards,
Sheng
>On 1/20/15, 7:26 PM, "Suresh Krishnan"
>wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on
>>advancing the draft describing the Softwire Mesh MIB as a Standards
>>Track RFC. The
Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Has Nits
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard
track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
“the specification of a DHCPv6 option that could be used to discover
unicast PREFIX64s in environments where multicast is not enabled
, January 10, 2017 2:44 PM
> To: Sheng Jiang; ops-...@ietf.org
> Cc: softwires@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
>
> Hi Sheng,
>
> Thank you fo
Looks good for me, thanks. Sheng
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
> [mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 3:17 PM
> To: Sheng Jiang; ops-...@ietf.org
> Cc: softwires@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-soft
As a co-author, I do think this document is a real useful one. The authors have
put a quite lot affords to make it into a good sharp. Consequently, I am in
favor of advancing this document.
Sheng
> -Original Message-
> From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yon
to the author.
No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on
draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04
Regards and thanks,
Sheng Jiang (document shepherd)
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
: Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:18 PM
To: Sheng Jiang
Cc: Softwires WG ; softwire-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04 as Standard
Track, closed by 27 June 2018
Hi Sheng,
Many thanks for agreeing to shepherd this.
As I co-author, I support moving this draft
Thanks, Andy. The author would handle your comments together with other WGLC
comments. More implementation is a great news.
Sheng
-Original Message-
From: Andy Wingo [mailto:wi...@igalia.com]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 5:14 PM
To: Softwires WG
Cc: Sheng Jiang
Subject: Re: [Softwires
ppendix A.1
"lwB4 IPv6 Address: 123"
What's the "lwB4 IPv6 Address" here?
Appendix A.2
"for the clients" -> "for the CEs"
Appendix A.3
The same "lwB4 IPv6 Address" issue
And the PSID and PSID offset should be provided in the example.
Chee
Hi, Med,
Thanks for addressing my comments. 06 version looks good from my perspective.
Cheers,
Sheng
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 4:54 PM
To: Sheng Jiang ; Softwires WG
Cc: softwire-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WGLC
neutral on the content side)
From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:00 PM
To: Softwires WG
Cc: softwire-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04 as Standard
Track, closed by 27 June 2018
the softwires at ietf.org list, although purely
editorial comments may be sent directly to the author.
No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on draft-ietf-softwire-yang-12
and it intends to become a Standard Track RFC.
Regards and thanks,
Sheng Jiang (document shep
passed the WGLC
and should continue to be advanced.
Best regards,
Sheng (document shepherd, Ian and Yong who as co-authors stayed neutral on the
content side)
From: Sheng Jiang
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2018 6:40 PM
To: Softwires WG
Cc: softwire-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Second WGLC for draft
62 matches
Mail list logo
