Hi, Alain, Yong and Ralph,
The newly posted agenda does not match the consensus as you mentioned on
6 Oct 2011, that “multiple address and port mapping technologies could
and should converge” and you formally announced “the creation of the MAP
(Mapping of Addresses and Ports) design team”, a design team which “is
tasked to formulate a unified format to be used either in an
encapsulation or double translation mode”
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg03024.html).
For the past few months, the design team has produced a series of MAP
documents, including MAP, MAP-E, MAP-T, MAP-dhcp, etc. The mailing-list
has also showed positive feedback on the adoption of the MAP series as
the standard track of working group documents. Moreover, the dIVI (an
earlier version of MAP-T) has been running successfuly at CERNET2 for
two years now.
4rd-U was submitted later, and the goal is to replace the MAP Series.
There have been discussions in the mailing list, but the discussions are
mainly questions concerning the 4rd-U proposal. Actually, 4rd-U is still
in the early design stage. Due to its proposed modification of the IPv6
architecture (V-Oct and the fragmentation header), the discussion should
be extended at least to 6man WG before the Softwire WG makes any
decision of adoption. Furthermore, experimental data should be presented
to the WG to show that these modifications are not harmful. In addition,
the fragmentation header modifications actually only deal with a very
corner case of double translation (10e-5% of the packets, not production
traffic).
Therefore, I don’t think we have any reason to change the procedure and
in the coming meeting, we should discuss whether consensus can be
reached for the adoption of the MAP series. We should discuss whether
4rd-U can be adopted in a later meeting when it gets proved by 6man and
its modifications are proved to be not harmful by experimental data.
Regards,
xing
? 2012/3/20 7:38, Alain Durand ??:
Dear wg,
After a number of discussions with my co-chair, our AD and various authors,
here is how we would like to move forward wrt 4rd.
1) There is an observation that all the solutions on the table E, T& U
actually solve the stateless problem we started with.
There are differences, but it is unclear if those differences are really
significant. E and T are the original Encapsulation and Translation
proposals, U is an hybrid unifying solution.
2) We have already agreed back in Beijing that we would publish all necessary
documents. The issue here is the 'label' or 'status' those
documents have at IETF. In particular, do we want to publish them as
Experimental, Informational or Standard Track.
We are at the point now where we need to make progress. In Paris, we would like to
ask for presentations from the proponents of each candidate solution (E, T& U).
Each presentation should cover an overview of the proposed solution, explain
how it compares to the others and make a case as why it should be the one on
the Standard Track. We will allocate 20 minutes for each presentation.
Then, we, chairs, would like to ask a series of questions to the working group.
In order to make this process transparent, here is the list of questions we
want to ask
and their sequence.
Q1: Without pre-supposing which one will be selected, do you agree to publish 1
of the 3 proposals on the Standard Track and publish the other(s) as
Informational if still asked to?
If the answer is NO, then the process stops and we will publish everything as
Experimental and come back in 12-24 months to see what gets adopted by the
market.
If the answer is YES, we move to the next question.
Q2: Do you believe that the WG should publish U as the one Standards Track
document?
If the answer is YES, the process stop, we put U on the Standard Track and publish
E& T as Informational.
If the answer is NO, we are left with E& T (U then might be abandoned or
published as Historical/Informational)
Q3: Which of E and T do you want to see moving on the standard track (you can
only express support for one)?
If there is a clear outcome from this question, we would publish that proposal
on the Standard Track and the other one as Informational.
If there is no clear consensus on this question, we will publish both E& T as
Experimental.
In the meantime, we would like to encourage discussion on the mailing list to
foster our common understanding of the various technologies and how they relate
to each other.
Alain& Yong, wg co-chairs.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
