Hi Satoru-san, Please see my comments inline.
On 2011/08/18, at 18:08, Satoru Matsushima wrote: > 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? From my perspective as the co-author of 4rd draft, I don't think we have enough discussion on this separation idea. So, I think it is good to have some discussion for this before deciding to create a separated document for only 4rd mapping rule. From my perspective, I prefer to create a single document for 4rd because it looks for me to be very understandable for everyone. Also, right now we have two draft as shown below. draft-murakami-softwire-4rd draft-murakami-softiwire-4v6-translation I think it might be good to combine these 2 drafts to create one unified document for 4rd specification. Note that this idea has been already proposed among authors. Anyway, in order to decide a document structure, I think we need to discuss about this more to figure out the pros & cons of creating the separated draft for 4rd mapping rule. > Since collided two documents for same specification would make much confusion > for people, I recommend you to collaborate with your friend. +1 Agreed. We need to discuss about this more. Thanks, Tetsuya Murakami > cheers, > --satoru > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
