Dear Cameron, Yes, I know it is tempting to have such section but it won't help in making a decision and, furthermore, it may maintain a tension between stateless and stateful camps. We tried in the document to be neutral as much as possible and avoid claiming "stateless is superior to stateful" or "stateful is superior to stateless".
I personally think both stateful and stateless solutions are needed. It is up to each service provider, taking into account its own environment and constraint, to select the flavour of solutions which fit its needs. The selection may even be complex given the diversity of networks and services managed by (large) service providers. Cheers, Med ________________________________ De : Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com] Envoyé : samedi 11 février 2012 15:31 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP Cc : softwires@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Softwires] Closing draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation On Feb 10, 2012 2:20 AM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> 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 > Softwires@ietf.org<mailto:Softwires@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
