Particularly when targeting the consumer appliance space, fewer documents are better than many. Softwires should be working to converge on a single concise and clear RFC for the "stateless ds-lite" mode of operation.
- Mark On Aug 18, 2011, at 9:08 PM, 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? > > 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 _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
