Hello Remi-san, I've found this mail now.
On 2011/07/16, at 22:55, Rémi Després wrote: > Hi all, > > 1. > Being active in the IETF community has been overall enjoyable but, for > various personal reasons including financial, > I will no longer contribute as much as before on v4/v6 transition solutions > (6rd, 4rd, 6a44). I'd happy to see you now on the list, more actively than before.:) --snip-- > 2. > Both the proposed translation-based solution > (draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation) and the proposed tunnel-based > solution (draft-murakami-softwire-4rd) use the v4v6 address mapping > algorithm, that of 4rd. > > It would therefore be advantageous to have an autonomous I-D on the 4rd > address mapping, and two I-D's pointing to it (for the translation-based and > for the tunnel-based solution). > I think that it is interesting idea. I heard you're personally work on that with some authors. On the other hand, I don't heard there is consensus among current 4rd authors for the separation. Do you have enough discussion on this? Since collided two documents for same specification would make much confusion for people, I recommend you to collaborate with your friend. cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
