2012/2/11, Cameron Byrne <[email protected]>: > 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.
Agree. Stateless and stateful may both have their own use cases.Saying that stateless is superior than stateful may not be appropriate considering that there is no comprehensive and quantitative comparation between them. BR, Dapeng > 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 > -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
