Le 2012-04-04 à 08:04, Maoke a écrit : > 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, Keeping arguing isn' sufficient to identify a real flaw. In all fairness, I believe that all real points you raised were covered, either by clarifications or with complements in the design, and that absence of flaws will be verified on actual implementations. Now, I think time has now come to calm down, and apply with the chair's announced plan before the meeting in case no single choice would emerge: have all documents published as WG drafts on experimental track. Regards, RD > 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
