On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Rémi Després <[email protected]>wrote:
> > 2013-01-24 17:27, Ole Troan <[email protected]> : > > > hi, > > > > can we please keep discussion on the list. not via the issue tracker? > > - the issue tracker was AFAIK created by the chairs to be used. > Authors don't like the issue tracker. No author likes it. Because of this in several WGs, issue tracker is not used. I don't know why? Regards, Behcet - I was answering a new input from Ole on the issue tracker itself, and > containing a question (see below). > > (Yet, if the chairs suggest to now avoid using the tracker, I will act > accordingly.) > > > > > does anyone else have an opinion? > > (if I don't hear anything from anyone else, I'll default to keep current > text.) > > Ole's point was: > "The interface-id has to be something. It is useful to put PSID and IPv4 > address in there for troubleshooting purposes. > Do you have a proposal for what you'd rather want it to be? > As the value is there largely for "pretty printing", just pick something." > > My comment has been: > "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)" > > Ole's reason to ignore this proposed simplification hasn't been given. > > Comments welcome. > > RD > > > > > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
