I support to have this set of drafts adopted as WG documents. Congxiao
2012/2/3 Xing Li <[email protected]> > 于 2012/2/1 22:33, Ole Trøan 写道: > > Mark, >> >> 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. >>> >> with regards to document organization we've been over that a few times. >> my understanding of the Beijing interim meeting was to have the >> organization of documents we have now. largely because there were >> discussions on different document status for the different documents. e.g. >> experimental versus standards track. >> >> yes, it is certainly possible to merge the 3 documents (MAP, T, E), with >> separate sections that only apply to encapsulation and some that apply to >> translation. what I feat is that you will pollute the text with lots of >> "does not apply in the translation case", "fragmentation issues are >> slightly different", and so on. >> >> this is obviously something the working group has to decide on, but I >> don't think that needs to be done before adopting this document set. >> > > I agree with Ole. > > Regards, > > xing > > > > cheers, >> Ole >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/softwires<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires> >> >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/softwires<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires> >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
