Remi, >> the authors did already do that. the dIVI and 4rd authors met 16th of >> November at the last IETF. >> we collectively went through the complete feature list. the result is what >> you find in the MAP document series. > > This MAP meeting was immediately after the Taipei Softwire meeting. At this > meeting, with an invalid technical argument, you had convinced most > participants that -U couldn't work, so that a majority didn't believe the -U > approach could be useful.
that's not quite how I remember it. there were a number of issues discussed with 4rd-U. - destination spread, caused by Max PSID, CNP (I was wrong about CNP causing destination spread). - V-octet; implications - how -U achieves transparency by overloading information in the fragmentation header > During this MAP meeting, a majority consequently expressed no interest in > considering further, for MAP, new features that were part of the -U proposal > (Reversible header mapping; Checksum neutrality, AKA CNP; Distinguishable > address format, AKA V octet). the MAP effort has focused on the mandatory functionality and features only. all the "features" between 4rd-U and MAP are interchangeable. in this instance I do believe "less is more" though. the distinguishing part of 4rd-U is that is uses a different form of translation than what MAP does. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
