> -----Message d'origine----- > De : Lee, Yiu [mailto:yiu_...@cable.comcast.com] > Envoyé : jeudi 15 mars 2012 14:19 > À : Alain Durand; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP > Cc : Softwires WG; draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite; > draft-penno-softwire-sd...@tools.ietf.org > Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs. > draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
> > > >IMHO, not specifying the technology to get pot range and > >living this to implementation is a serious shortcoming. > >We need to standardize one method. > > We can easily define a method in the B4 translated DS-lite > draft. We have > few on the table (i.e. dhcpv4 over v6 transport, dhcpv6, > radius, pcp). We > can ask the WG to decide which one should be in the base > spec. This is how > RFC5959 was written. Alternatively, we can do what RFC6333 > does. RFC6333 > doesn't have any provision method defined except referring to RFC6334. Med: I fully agree. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
