Le 16 août 2011 à 11:23, Nejc Škoberne a écrit : > Dear Rémi, > >> Maybe it would be better to only cover specifications for which drafts are >> available. >> (I found the two "DSlite?" columns confusing, with no document to check >> their validity.) > > I considered this, but then decided to do it this way since as far as I > understand, DS-Lite RFC doesn't say what IPv4 address and UDP/TCP port > allocation policy must be supported.
I see. Then "unspecified" in the DS-lite column might be another way to express it. BTW, colors don't seem necessary. Without them, one avoids having to decide whether "IPv4 address and UDP/TCP port allocation policy" is red or green ;-). > The same goes for provisioning > additional IPv4 addresses and port ranges. Is this correct? > >> Also, some of us are currently working on separating the 4rd "stateless >> address mapping" from its possible application to various encapsulation and >> translation mechanisms. >> When done, hopefully soon, this could influence the way to structure your >> comparison table. > > This would indeed be very useful. I will certainly work on it as soon as the > document is > publicly available. Excellent. Look forward to it. RD > > Thanks, > Nejc _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
