dear Remi, 2012/4/2 Rémi Després <[email protected]>
> Hi, Congxiao, > > During the Softwire meeting, you came to the mike to assert that the 4rd-U > specification was known to have "flaws". > > Yet, you do know that the 4rd-U specification has been reviewed by > competent contributors of widely varied origin, with no identified flaw > left in the draft. > the "with no identified flaw left in the draft" is only your statement instead of the conclusion of the competent contributors. if the draft -06 or -07 limits the scope of 4rd-u with at least the following constrainsts, i guess it could be better with less flaws. - the domain having IPv6 firewalls or filters or IP/ICMP integrity varification mechanism between CE and BR is out of scope - the domain having IPv6 dynamic routing ttl-security mechanism is out of scope - simultaneously supporting single translation with using IPv4-mapped address for native IPv6-only networks/nodes is out of scope - supporting L4 protocol that not yet supported by NAT44 is out of scope (even for the case where NAT44 is bypassed, like 1:1 address mapping) - the IPv4 option transparency is out of scope, even for temporary end-to-end usage for some reason like experiments. were 4rd-u-06 updated with the above constraints, it is still have some technical inconsistency. i'd love to point them out when i have seen the scope clarification made by the authors. because the problem impact would change when the scope is changed. (well, it is another problem if people would like to have such a so-limited stuff) > Since you have AFAIK made no previous contribution on the mailing list to > justify such an assertion, would you be kind enough to explain what, in > your understanding, wouldn't work in 4rd-U? > > Without that, your statement might be understood as an attempt at biasing > people's understanding just before a vote (which I suppose you didn't want). > one doesn't write too much in cockfighting mails != he/she doesn't think, listen, and analyze. on the other hand, i understand the statement (no matter oral or written) in the venue is also considered as IETF contribution. do you think your statement on "no identified flaws left", ignoring the fact that competent contributors keep arguing, is not an attempt at biasing people's understanding in the venue? - maoke > > Thanks, > RD > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
