Le 2012-02-01 à 15:13, Mark Townsley a écrit : > > While I appreciate the functional modularity in understanding the solution > space, I do wish that DT had come up with a way to make this one document to > present to the world rather than four. I fear organ rejection when tossing a > list of RFCs for one function to the CPE industry. > > In current form, each document has more or less than 10 pages of substantive > text, with considerable overlap between them (how many "framework" and > "architecture" sections do we really need for what are really just two > variants of something 95% the same?). As further evidence of the problem, > there are no less than 19 references to mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port > from draft-mdt-softwire-map-translation-00. One page has 5 references alone. > It's is like reading a single book with every other page in a different > binding. > > Could we not eliminate the overlap, and just boil this down to one less than > 40 page document? In fact, I bet if you tried you could get it down to half > that. Looks like Remi's new document is on the right track in this regard. > > I'm in favor of the chairs stating that we will adopt a WG document based on > the text in these documents, but I would like to see a stipulation that they > be combined into one (perhaps two but with only the DHCP option separate) and > the overlap eliminated among MAP, T and E eliminated.
Well, this seems similar to taking the new 4rd document and analyzing what is missing or is unnecessary. Except for the fact that double RF46145 is replaced by the self-contained Header mapping variant, more transparent, but about which there is an ongoing discussion with Maoke, the last 4rd-U draft is, in my understanding, largely what you are looking for. It avoids all the complexity of GMA port-mapping, a nice piece of technology but near to 5 pages that don't seem to serve real needs (a fixed PSID is enough in practice AFAIK). Avoiding to review the unified draft because of some NIH syndrome would be IMHO a way to miss a good opportunity for progress. I do look forward to technical comments on draft-despres-softwire-4rd-U. RD > > - Mark > > > On Jan 30, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Ole Trøan wrote: > >> hi, >> >> the MAP (Mapping of address and port) design team has now written and >> published the following sets of drafts. >> >> the base document (port mapping algorithm): >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03 >> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03.txt >> >> the encapsulation document (MAP-E): >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00 >> >> the translation document (MAP-T): >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-map-translation-00 >> >> the DHCP option (MAP-DHCP): >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option-02 >> >> there is a MAP deployment document coming soon. >> >> the solution described in this set of documents, are written to satisfy the >> following from the softwires charter: >> 4. Developments for stateless legacy IPv4 carried over IPv6 >> - develop a solution motivation document to be published as an RFC >> - develop a protocol specification response to the solution >> motivation document; this work item will not be taken through >> >> in the design team's view, this set of documents are ready to be adopted as >> working group documents. >> >> comments? >> >> for the MAP design team, >> Ole >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
