hi, can we please keep discussion on the list. not via the issue tracker?
does anyone else have an opinion? (if I don't hear anything from anyone else, I'll default to keep current text.) cheers, Ole On Jan 24, 2013, at 17:23 , softwire issue tracker <[email protected]> wrote: > #19: IPv4 address superfluous in MAP-E Interface IDs > > Changes (by [email protected]): > > * priority: trivial => major > * status: closed => reopened > * resolution: wontfix => > > > Comment: > > Value of having the PSID in MAP-E IIDs for maintenance isn't clear at all: > - PSID length isn't determined in IIDs (there can be an unknown number of > trailing zeroes) > - all PSID bits are already readable in the first 64 bits > > Suggestion to close the issue: > - keep IPv4 addresses in IIDs (they contains some bits that aren't in the > first 64 bits) > - don't keep the PSID in IIDs (insufficiently justified complexity) > > -- > -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- > Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-softwire- > [email protected] | [email protected] > Type: defect | Status: reopened > Priority: major | Milestone: > Component: map-e | Version: > Severity: Candidate | Resolution: > WG Document | > Keywords: | > -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- > > Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/ticket/19#comment:4> > softwire <http://tools.ietf.org/softwire/> > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
