Le 19 août 2011 à 10:15, Satoru Matsushima a écrit : > 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.
If I misinterpreted what I saw, that's even better. >> 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. Not from my experience, but different views are possible.. >>> 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? They do, of course, what they wish. I certainly don't pretend to impose anything! I was just making a suggestion. >> 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. Sure, no problem. > 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? I suppose you refer to co-authors of the draft. Since we are very busy closing this phase, wishing to share asap our proposal with the WG, I preferred to avoid being distracted from that goal until the draft is posted. It should be now only a matter of hours. >> 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. Sorry to hear that before you have seen it. > I continue to recommend you to collaborate with > current 4rd draft authors. Now, since you insist, let one point be clear. In Quebec, the presenter of the 4rd draft mentioned my contribution to 4rd to only say that the previous 4rd draft had been submitted to Intarea "because Remi wanted it despite a different view from others". This is as you know completely false, and is an offense. Also, one of his slides has "4rd aka Stateless DS-lite". He knows, as you know, that I had expressed strong opposition to this badly reductive view (DS lite is hub and spoke, has no NAT in CPE's, ...). I prefer to collaborate with co-authors who have respect for my contributions. I was hoping not to have to say that, and hope I won't have to expand. But I am tired of being told what to do, an not to do, by a group that accepts my being publicly humiliated. Your contribution to progress of 4rd in IETF deserves great recognition, and nothing will change my mind on this. I deserve respect too. Sorry to have felt obliged to give this explanation. Hope future will be brighter. Regards, RD > > cheers, > --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
