2011/8/19 Rémi Després <[email protected]>:
> I think so.
> I know that some, although expressing nothing against the idea, would prefer 
> to wait and see.

I haven't heard so.


> But others believe that, concerning the best way to structure drafts, the 
> earlier is the better.
>

IMHO, document structure is a last discussion item of standardization.



>
>> 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.
>

The problem is, there's no consensus before you post the draft. Why do
you think they do so?


> 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.

We can discuss well with current drafts, no need alternatives.
Without collaboration, it must be a troublemaker.

>
> 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 ;-).
>

Why don't you introduce them to us?


> 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.

I don't appreciate. I continue to recommend you to collaborate with
current 4rd draft authors.

cheers,
--satoru
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to