Hi Med, I agree with Woj.
I do not favor moving this draft to somewhere else. Instead this draft should be revised to make it Multicast extensions to DS-Lite as in the charter. There is enough time to do it. Regards, Behcet On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:43 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Woj, > > Your comment is valid. > > The point I wanted to make is to recall the initial motivation of this > draft: solve an issue raised by DS-Lite people. > > Evidently, the proposed approach can be deployed in any 4-6-4 scenario. This > will be reflected in the updated version of the draft. > > Cheers, > Med > > ________________________________ > De : Wojciech Dec [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 09:57 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP > Cc : [email protected]; Stig Venaas; [email protected]; Yong Cui > > Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on > draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02 > > Hello Med, > > there is no dependency here on ds-lite, ie This has all the hallmarks of a > standalone solution, which will almost certainly be implemented as such, and > one that will work with or without ds-lite for unicast. > > Regards, > Woj. > > On 8 June 2012 07:48, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Re-, >> >> May I re-iterate: >> >> * The draft is designed to allow the delivery of multicast services to >> DS-Lite serviced customers. >> * The draft proposes multicast extensions and not unicast ones. >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >> >-----Message d'origine----- >> >De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]] >> >Envoyé : jeudi 7 juin 2012 20:20 >> >À : Stig Venaas >> >Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; [email protected]; Yong Cui >> >Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on >> >draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02 >> > >> >On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stig Venaas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 6/7/2012 10:08 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:07 >> >AM,<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> > >> >>> So you are saying that this draft does not correspond to >> >>> Multicast extensions for DS-Lite? >> >> >> >> >> >> I sent a separate review, but anyway, it is not an extension to >> >> DS-Lite as I see it. It is a completely generic approach for >> >> tunneling v6 through v4. It can certainly be deployed in DS-Lite >> >> scenarios, but it is much more generic. I would like the title and >> >> the text to reflect that. >> > >> >So it means that this draft does not correspond to Softwire charter >> >item and we discover this quite late in the process. >> > >> >My recommendation to the chairs is to read and double check the draft >> >before making an adoption call, especially if there is choice. >> > >> >As I mentioned in my mboned mail, in multicast transition I think the >> >right approach is to agree to the fact that most of the host's >> >communication will be unicast. For unicast, v4-v6 transition has >> >already been well analyzed and several protocols have been specified. >> >Multicast extensions to those protocols are what we need. >> > >> >Regards, >> > >> >Behcet >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
