On Feb 10, 2012 2:20 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear WG members, > > I would like to close this document so that we can meet the following item from the WG 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 > Working Group last call until the solution motivation document > has been published or approved for publication > " > > Except the a comment asking to include a new section to compare stateful vs. stateless, no further comments have been received. > > I didn't considered adding the proposed new section because IMO it is out of scope of this document. That section can justify in its own a dedicated draft. >
I find this omission disappointing. There is a common assumption that stateless is superior to stateful, but it is not quantified anywhere. It seems all this stateless work hinges on this assumption without any quantification. Honestly, the omission makes me believe the case of stateless being superior is dubious. Cb > As for the next step, I see two options: > > (1) Either issue a WG LC, or > (2) Withdraw the document and update the WG charter. > > WG members, please advise. > > Cheers, > Med > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
