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.
a) I believe that all co-authors of the 4rd-U proposal are competent contributors. b) They did review the specification, and so far don't find any of the the alleged flaws. There is nothing more intended in my statement above. Even after the last mail exchanges, and although some others think differently, I honestly think that none of the alleged 4rd-u flaws is effective in real world, and that any of these would prevent 4rd-U deployments to be useful and flawless. Regards, RD > > 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
