Remi, I really do not understand the aversion to classifying 4rd as a stateless version of ds-lite. I'm not suggesting getting rid of the "4rd" name, this is really just a classification.
Let's look at the example of "clock" you brought up. The word "clock" comes from "clocc, clokke, cloque, cloch", likely Celtic or Latin origin, meaning "bell." If you look at mechanism rather than how people actually use the device, it makes no sense whatsoever for a "digital time indicator" made with LEDs and run with semiconductors to be called something that means "bell". Even so, everyone who knew what a clock was at the time could immediately understand what a "digital clock" was the moment (no pun intended) they saw one. Teaching the world an entire new "Electronic Digital Time Indicator (EDTI)" term would have been futile. Hence the "analog clock" retronym was born, and today you have an "analog or digital" setting for your clock on your Mac. It takes me about 30 seconds to describe at a high-level what 4rd is to someone who already understands ds-lite by referring to it as "a stateless version of ds-lite". That's a good thing. - Mark Ref: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=clock On Aug 21, 2011, at 1:50 AM, Rémi Després wrote: > Mark, > > Interesting definition of "retronym". > > It remains, though, that an analogue clock, the example given in the given > reference) is a clock variant (a device for measuring time). > A 4rd-encapsulation solution is in no way a DS-lite variant ("built on a > tunnel to reach a CGN"). > > It would be nice, therefore, if the idea of using "stateless DS-lite" as a > valuable substitute to "4rd" would no longer need to be discussed. > > Thanks, > RD > > > > > Le 20 août 2011 à 04:05, Mark Townsley a écrit : > >> Aug 19, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Rémi Després wrote: >>> >>> Le 19 août 2011 à 17:11, Mark Townsley a écrit : > ... >>>> >>>> Let me fill you in on some history. >>>> >>>> The term "Dual Stack Lite" came into being during a discussion at a cafe >>>> between Alain Durand and I. It was June 2008, and Alain was in Paris for >>>> the ICANN meeting while still working for Comcast. We had been discussing >>>> the various pros and cons of tunneling vs. dual-translation for a while. >>>> Alain was emphasizing that what was of most importance to him as an ISP, >>>> was that he not be burdened with provisioning IPv4 within the ISP network >>>> itself. However, in all cases the service to the subscriber was intended >>>> to be dual-stack. So: "Dual-stack" service but "lighter" on the ISP in >>>> terms of management and provisioning. Thus the term "dual-stack lite" was >>>> born. >>> >>> That's a good clarification. >>> >>> But in the mean time, DS-lite got specified in an RFC that won't change. >> >> But RFC's get updated all the time, as does terminology. Adding an adjective >> to something that is well understood to indicate that it can serve the same >> purpose but in a different way is quite useful during the introduction of >> that technology. Think "Horseless Carriage" >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retronym >> >> A retronym is a type of neologism that provides a new name for an object or >> concept to differentiate the original form or version of it from a more >> recent form or version.[1] The original name is most often augmented with an >> adjective (rather than being completely displaced) to account for later >> developments of the object or concept itself. Much retronymy is driven by >> advances in technology. >> >> - Mark >> >>> RFC6333 says: >>> - "Dual-Stack Lite enables a broadband service provider to share IPv4 >>> addresses among customers by combining two well-known technologies: IP in >>> IP (IPv4-in-IPv6) and Network Address Translation (NAT)." >>> - "the Dual-Stack Lite model is built on IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels to cross the >>> network to reach a carrier-grade IPv4-IPv4 NAT (the AFTR)," >>> - etc. >>> >>>> From the beginning the "lite" term was about having less IPv4 in the >>>> access network for the operator to manage and provision, while still >>>> providing dual-stack service to the subscriber. 4rd fits that, as does RFC >>>> 6333. The solution details are just that - details. >>> >>> The devil is in details. >>> >>> Too bad 4rd wasn't invented before DS-lite. It would have better deserved >>> the "lite" qualifier, but that's not how things happened. >>> >>> Because of what RFC6333 says, suggesting NOW that solutions that don't need >>> NATs are variants of DS-lite is a sure way to confuse people. >>> >>> I do hope this discussion will now stop: there are so many technical >>> "details" that need to reach common understanding, and agreement. >>> In any case thank you for the really interesting explanation on history. >>> >>> Cheers. >>> RD >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
