Hi Olaf, I thought that your comment was not a technical one:) so, I wanted to comment on the procedural aspect of it. But anyhow, the draft claims applicability to network mobility with RFC3775 and RFC5213 being referenced. Having that claim in the draft is not justified and there is a need for IETF mobility group to evaluate if the current IETF mobility suite of protocols need this solution to start with.
On the other hand, following the discussion, it is quite clear that this tool is needed when 3GPP GTP network based mobility is used. If that the case, then the draft need to reflect that specifically. Also, not to mention that although this approach moves the NAT to a single network element, but it also concentrates IPv4 traffic through a single network element creating a single point of failure. Regards, Ahmad > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:28 AM > To: Ahmad Muhanna > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: AW: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item? > > Hi Ahmad, > > thanks for your answer. I've frankly to say that I've not > totally understood your concerns regarding this I-D: > - Is it to limited to only one scenario or is it to broad in > its approach? > - Should such a document in your understanding serve for > several different network scenarios (if it could) or should > it be specific and applicable only to a specific migration need? > - Would it help you to sharpen the text regarding the > intent/scope of this document? > > Thank you and kind regards > Olaf > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Ahmad Muhanna [mailto:[email protected]] > > Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Mai 2010 14:45 > > An: Bonneß, Olaf; [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Betreff: RE: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item? > > > > Hi Olaf, > > Please see inline. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > [email protected] > > > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 3:18 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item? > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > And to be clear: A WG document still needs work and discussion > > > inside the WG. > > > > > But sometimes I have the feeling that today very often the > > > requirements for a document to become a WG item are set > equal to the > > > requirements for a WG LC. > > [Ahmad] > > Not exactly. > > > > I understand very well that some operators need certain > specific tools > > to fit their own migration strategy. > > Additionally, I do not want to debate the best way for operators to > > achieve their specific migration strategy. But, the least > acceptable > > common sense is: We can not accept a document that claim > > one-size-fits-all concept in order to satisfy the forth mentioned > > specific migration strategy. IMO, before accepting whatever > document, > > that document needs to be specific and applicable only to that > > specific migration need. > > > > Regards, > > Ahmad > > > > > But this may be my personal feeling only. > > > > > > Kind regards > > > Olaf > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Softwires mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
