Dear Dapeng, The current text says:
* no state in the (provider) network side * state may exist in the customer premises side * focus is on carrier-side stateless solutions As an editor of the document, I believe the new version solves your concerns. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] De la part de liu dapeng >Envoyé : mercredi 13 juin 2012 05:40 >À : Lee, Yiu >Cc : [email protected] >Objet : Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: >draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-02.txt > >As a reader of the document, not co-author any related document, I >believe people who is not involved the whole process (e.g. edit the >documents, design the solutions,etc) couldn't understand the story >behind that. I personally have sincerely heard some people presenting >and evaluating this technology incorrectly somewhere before because of >ambiguous understanding on the term. > >My purpose is that IETF has the responsibility to clarify what we are >documenting clearly to prevent from misleading. > >I'm thankful to your discussion that made all things clear than before. > >And I don't understand why we don't document something we already >agreed on, but let the misleading to continue. > >Regards, >Dapeng Liu > >2012/6/13, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]>: >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>2012/6/12, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]>: >>>> 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" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>2012/6/12, Ole Trøan <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>[email protected] >>>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>------ >>>Best Regards, >>>Dapeng Liu >> > > >-- > >------ >Best Regards, >Dapeng Liu >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
