Dear Alain, I'm very happy to have discussion, not only in Quebec meeting, but also on the list.
Actually, we had two month from we submitted the initial version. While that time, we received many valuable comments and discussions from people. Most significant thing we did is that we have unified two drafts into the one. So we have accordingly asked you to adopt it as a WG document. IMHO, there's no concern to take this procedure, no alternatives but there are many supports from community. My understanding here is that this work is an appropriate charter item, WG document adoption is JUST starting point. Best regards, --satoru On 2011/07/07, at 22:38, Alain Durand wrote: > Following up on the 'stateless' thread from a wg chair perspective. > > Yong and I are preparing a discussion FOR the Quebec meeting on the so-called > stateless solution. > > There are a number of points in the current draft that need discussion. > > For example, no logging has been presented as a strong reason to do sateless. > However, no logging can be achieved > with static port allocation on a centralized NAT. On this particular logging > point, there are no obvious differences between the > 'distributed on CPE' NAT solution and the centralized NAT solution. > > More generally, it seems that what is described as a 'stateless' solution > should be characterized as a > 'distributed state' solution. As such, the tradeoff of maintaining the state > centrally vs globally > needs to be analyzed. > > Also, it is not clear from this document which set of issues listed in > RFC6269 are mitigated and which ones are not. > In particular, I'd hold that a so-called 'stateless' solution does not change > anything about the recommendations in RFC6302/BCP162 > that are derived from RFC6269... > > We, chairs, would like to prepare a 'organized' discussion around these > points (and others). We need a small number of > volunteers to help frame this discussion. Please contact me and Yong directly > if you want to help. > This is an important topic, and we intend to make sure there is ample time > for discussion in Quebec. > > - Alain. > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
