Hi Dapeng, This draft was written by operators, we do not have any problem understanding it. Besides, I disagree we "intentionally hide the truth". Please explain to the WG what truth we are trying to hide in this draft? I am not convinced we need to say anymore than what we have stated in the new version.
Thanks, Yiu On 6/12/12 11:45 AM, "liu dapeng" <maxpass...@gmail.com> wrote: >2012/6/12, Lee, Yiu <yiu_...@cable.comcast.com>: >> Hi Dapeng., >> >> This is not a specification draft. This is a draft to discuss the >> motivations. IMHO, people who are working in this area would be able to >> understand this draft. > >=> I guess the audience is not only designer of protocol, but also >operators >who want to evaluate and adopt such technology. Intentional hiding the >truth >for me is really bad. > > > >The focus of it is about the carrier network, CPE >> is never the focal point. I think the current statement "States may >>still >> exist in other equipments such as customer premises equipment." is >>enough. > >=>Please see my reply in previous mail. "may" is not sufficient. > >> Adding more text only causes confusion. > >=>What I do is objectively to elaborate what we are. Why would that cause >confusion? > >Regards, >Dapeng > > >> Thanks, >> Yiu >> >> On 6/12/12 6:21 AM, "liu dapeng" <maxpass...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>2012/6/12, Ole Trøan <otr...@employees.org>: >>>>> Ok, then we can make this more clear in our document. >>>>> >>>>> "States still should be maintained in other equipments, e.g. customer >>>>> premises equipment or host, in order to restrict IP address or port >>>>> number >>>>> information into the configured context except that a non-shared IPv4 >>>>> address is >>>>> assigned to a standalone host." >>>> >>>> I think this is just adding confusion. >>>> the NAT44 on the CPE already does this. >>> >>>=>First off, we are not only talking about NAT44 here, but port >>>translation and non-shared address. Secondly, NAT44 on the CPE is not >>>doing what today NAT44 does. For example, override ID in ICMP with >>>port information. >>> >>>that reminds me to update the proposed text a bit, >>> >>>"States still should be maintained in other equipments, e.g. customer >>>premises equipment or host, in order to restrict L3 or L4 information >>>into the configured context except that a non-shared IPv4 address is >>>assigned to a standalone host." >>> >>>> I suggest we instead talk about no _additional_ state in the network. >>>>there >>>> is no need to mention the CPE, apart from stating that no additional >>>>state >>>> is required. >>> >>>=>I believe the above is clear for reader and designer. I don't see why >>>we resist on clarifying and helping reader better understanding. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Dapeng Liu >>> >>> >>>> cheers, >>>> Ole >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>------ >>>Best Regards, >>>Dapeng Liu >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Softwires mailing list >>>Softwires@ietf.org >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> > > >-- > >------ >Best Regards, >Dapeng Liu
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
