2012-06-26 à 09:37, Wojciech Dec: > On 26 June 2012 09:13, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 2012-06-26 à 08:04, Wojciech Dec a écrit : >> >> On 25 June 2012 17:28, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: ... >> Having asked several times for a list of substantial evolutions from >> previous MAP drafts, with their justifications, and having received no >> answer, I see this statement as an indirect but first answer. >> >> Woj> You were provided with an answer (pls see Ole's mail). > > Could you please indicate which one?
Since you claim there has been an answer, and suggest I find it, I suppose you can find it yourself. => Please answer (or implicitly acknowledge that the list of MAP substantial evolutions is still awaited). >> But it doesn't seem acceptable (*): >> - AFAIK, the added 5th parameter of basic mapping rules is more than >> editorial >> >> Woj> Please indicate what the new parameter in your opinion is. > > In Section 5, "Forwarding mode" has become a BMR 5th parameter. > In Section 5 of the mdt draft of january 30, there were only 4 BMR parameter. > > Anything missed? > > Ok, so fair point. MAP-E and -T have been merged in the draft, based on > previous feedback from the WG incl discussions at the last meeting. We > thought having less drafts is more as was discussed at the last meeting. The > updated draft also highlights how much commonality there is. - A parameter PER DOMAIN was an obvious result of a merger. - But a parameter PER RULE is a significant novelty. OK? > We're welcome to suggestions on how to provide information on which transport > mode to use, or if the merger is no desired. > >> - I didn't find the equivalent of the following sentence in previous drafts: >> "A MAP-E CE provisioned with only a Default Mapping Rule, as in the 1:1 >> case, and with no IPv4 address and port range configured by other means, >> MUST disable its NAT44 functionality." > > Is there such an equivalent? > Please answer (not answering the question isn't a way to eliminate it). > > Equivalent of what? Is there in previous drafts the sentence above (or an equivalent) "A MAP-E CE... MUST disable its NAT44 functionality."? - If yes, please indicate where. - If not, IT IS an evolution, to be identified as such. > Note: I asked you how you would propose dealing with the DMR but no BMR > corner case, and await your proposal.. - In the 4rd draft, appendix D, there is a deployment example with only on mapping rule (the BR mapping rule, AKA the DMR in your MAP draft). - If this isn't sufficient to answer your concern, please point to the mail in which you asked the unanswered question. Thanks, RD
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
