Qiong, all, Le 2012-06-07 à 16:23, Qiong a écrit :
> Hi Ole, > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Ole Trøan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think we should still keep the initial feature of these solutions. > > all the proposed solutions, including DS-lite shares a large set of > commonalities. where the differences are more operational considerations and > deployment choices than technical differences. do we need a separate protocol > specification for each deployment choice? > > I vote for describing the protocol specifications for different scenarios > seperately. +1 Also considering that: - Draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01 has already reached a WG document status, and needs AFAIK no technical change to become an RFC - It has no dependency on 4rd or MAP - There is even one more solution with different scope but commonality, namely 464XLAT currently discussed in v6ops Regards, RD > Although they have some commonalities, there are still quite a lot of > differences from techincal details for their own features. As we currently > have three categories of solutions, I think it will be easier and clearer > for readers to understand each solution in seperated document. > > Best wishes > Qiong > > > cheers, > Ole > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
