On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org> 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? > Jacni>: Yes, a little. Too many operational issues, is there any order of priority? Or just point out what you concern the most? I felt lost after reading it. :-) > 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. > Jacni>: +1 Cheers, Jacni > > cheers, > Ole > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
