On 26 June 2012 10:37, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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). > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04358.html It's a short list : - MAP-E and MAP-T drafts have been merged. - Handling of the corner cases regarding DMR but no BMR added - Non normative text regarding use (eg backwards compatibility) added. > > 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? > > That was not intended, and appears to be a genuine mistake in draft-00. Thanks for spotting. It is a parameter per domain, as discussed on the design team alias. -Woj. > > 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
