[email protected] wrote, on 08/16/2011 11:03 AM: > As for the content of the next iteration of the document, we have two options > so far: > > (1) Put back some sections which have been removed in -02, add a new section > to discuss dynamic vs. static, handle the comments received from J. Arkko, > etc. > > Or > > 2) An alternative structure has been proposed off-line by A. Durand: discuss > dynamic vs. static and stateful vs. dynamic. The analysis would elaborate the > pros and cons of each solution (static stateless, static stateful, dynamic > stateful,...). This document would be an analysis document and not a > motivation document anymore. This document has no milestone in the charter > IMHO. Note the charter mentions the following: > > "Aug 2011 - Adopt stateless legacy IPv4 solution motivation document as a > Working Group document" > > > I personally think the first option is straightforward but I'm open to the > opinions of the working group members on how to proceed.
For me, the first option makes more sense. I also support adoption of this document and am expecting an adoption call soon. Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
