Dear WG members, I didn't had time to read the last version of 4rd-U but I read carefully -03 when it was published.
I really appreciated the work done by Rémi to write down -03. The document is well written, easy to read and the requirements are clearly sketched. I really think this spirit should be adopted by MAP documents. As I already told Rémi, I would like if all proponents of stateless A+P converge and avoid wasting energies in comparing individual proposals. I thought this is what has been agreed during the softwire interim meeting: IMO, MAP effort meets the objective of group work. Some of the points raised by Rémi can be easily considered in the context of MAP; except the idea of unified header which is a step forward. Adopt a unified approach is exclusive to encapsulation and/or translation. The question now is: Does the unified approach bring new features + simplification compared to the normal IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme (which I'm mainly interested in)? The answer is: No. Perhaps this is selfish but given what I mentioned above, I vote for the following: * Adopt the work of the MAP design team as the base specification for stateless A+P effort. * Make sure proposals from Rémi (except U) are discussed: e.g., Checksum neutrality (1) Share the archives of MAP Design Team discussion (2) Use IETF Issue Tracker to record the issues and the consensus/conclusion (3) Adopt a clear procedure within the Design Team to make decisions when there are conflicts * Reduce the amount of MAP documents: IMHO, three documents are needed (1) MAP Address Format (2) MAP Overall Architecture and Design Recommendations (3) MAP DHCPv6 Options Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : softwires-boun...@ietf.org >[mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Alain Durand >Envoyé : mardi 20 mars 2012 00:39 >À : Softwires WG >Cc : Yong Cui; Ralph Droms >Objet : [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rd. > >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
