Dear Remi, Thank you for a kind offer. It would be a very positive compromise for us.
However, in the context of making another new stream document, which MAP-bis as you said, I decline it. Nevertheless, if you abandon 4rd work, I'm very welcome you as an author of MAP. Best regards, --satoru On 2012/06/23, at 1:52, Rémi Després wrote: > Yong, Suresh, Ralph, > > For mesh stateless v4/v6, we have so far a choice between only two solutions, > MAP as is and 4rd. > On can hope that the consensus that couldn't be reached in Paris will be > achievable in Vancouver, but this isn't sure, each "camp" keeping its own > expectation. > > Looking at recent history, we can remember that, not long ago, the chair's > approach was to have 3 specifications completed (MAP-T, MAP-E, and MAP-H, as > Alain called it with H for Hybrid), and then to choose only one for > standardization. > > After that, promoters of either -T and -E decided to merge -T and -E in a > non-separable specification, as reflected in draft-ietf-softwire-map-00. > Thus, the choice has become between a "two-variants" specification (MAP) and > a "single-variant" specification (4rd). > > In this context, a larger choice might well be the best chance for a WG > consensus. It would include a MAP specification in which the forwarding mode > of 4rd would be added as 3rd, say a "MAP-bis" . > With this MAP-bis: > - vendors have to support 3 forwarding modes, which isn't ideal, but most of > the design, in particular in what concerns mapping rules, remains common > (Alain once said, possibly with optimism, the three were 99% identical!) > - operators have a free choice between T, E, or H, based on their operational > preferences. > - we have (at last) a stabilized design with no one badly frustrated. > > If this approach makes sense for the WG, I can do the work of editing a > MAP-bis proposal (taking the current MAP specification, adding a section that > describes the hybrid forwarding mode, and adding a third variant in the > address-format section). > > My personal preference remains for 4rd as single standard, but a choice > between MAP-as-is, MAP-bis, and 4rd, is IMHO a sounder choice for the WG than > just between MAP-as-is and 4rd. > > Hoping that this will be found constructive, > Best regards, > 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
