> On May 26, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > > > I like the draft and I think it covers the motivational points well. > > > > as a general comment, I do think the document is too wordy. could the >authors make the next revision terser or do you want me to propose text >changes? > > > > I would also suggest that you reference the sections in rfc1958 on state. > > we don't have a good success record in gleaning state in the middle of the >network (NAT, N:1 VLANs, DHCP...), since the protocols we 'glean' from aren't >designed to maintain softstate in the network. > > > > I see no reason why this document shouldn't be adopted as a working group >document immediately. > > I support this becoming a WG document, and agree with Ole that the next >version should cut back on text. We want to give the IESG something as clear >and concise as possible. > > If there is reasonable consensus (not that the document is complete, but > that >it will be the basis for the final document), all it takes is an OK by the >chairs and a submission by the authors with the WG title. > >
You mean after merging with draft-chen-softwire-4v6-motivation-00.txt? then +1 from me. Behcet _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
