Le 19 août 2011 à 03:08, Satoru Matsushima a écrit : > 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.:)
Thanks. (For other personal reasons, which I shared with you privately, I decided to come back and to meet meet financial expenses at least until the Taipei meeting. Hope it will be useful to the community. > --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. Thanks. Several supports on the list, with no opposition, looks like a good start for a rough consensus. > I heard you're personally work on that with some authors. Indeed, as I have written to you, a draft is coming, now very soon. > On the other hand, I don't heard there is consensus among current 4rd authors > for the separation. Fair enough. A draft submitted under responsibility is its authors is a practical ways to test consensus. > Do you have enough discussion on this? I think so. I know that some, although expressing nothing against the idea, would prefer to wait and see. But others believe that, concerning the best way to structure drafts, the earlier is the better. > Since collided two documents for same specification would make much confusion > for people, It isn't difficult, in my understanding, to replace sec. 5 of the Encapsulation draft by a pointer to the stateless-address-mapping draft. As you know, I personally believe that the Encapsulation method of a sufficient tunneling method for stateless operation. (It is more transparent than the double-translation tunneling method, and adds header overheads that are small enough in practice). Yet, I understand that (at least for the time being) there is no consensus on that. Both proposals will therefore be discussed. Whether Encapsulation and Double-translation methods will remain in separate drafts or might be regrouped in a single one including their comparison is, as far as I am concerned, an open question (neither in favor nor against). > I recommend you to collaborate with your friend. No need to recommend it! I have always worked on subjects I find important with whoever is welcoming my cooperation ;-). To conclude, I do hope you will appreciate the 4rd Address-Mapping draft as much as its authors do, and that it will be a good basis for our further collaboration. Cheers, RD > > > cheers, > --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
