2013-02-14 12:12, Ole Troan <[email protected]>: > Med, > >> To start with, there was no consensus to include MAP1:1 in the MAP spec. >> Unless I'm mistaken, objection to include that mode in the base MAP spec was >> raised several times in the mailing list. It was mainly raised by authors of >> Lw4o6 but they are also contributors to softwire. >> >> As an editor of this document, with all due respect, you should ask the >> opinion of the WG before recording the consensus into the document. The WG >> owns this document and it can decide what to put on it. >> >> I'm personally in favour of removing MAP1:1 section from this document as >> this mode can not be packaged as stateless. But, this is only my opinion. > > you didn't answer my question.
> 1:1 mode has always been part of MAP. Untrue: - Initially, the MAP draft was limited to stateless, WITHOUT any reference to 1:1 (October 2011 to January 2012, ref http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-00 to -03) - It is only when the MAP draft had to be re-issued a WG document that, without previous discussion in the WG, applicability to 1:1 was added by its editor(s) (June 2012). - When MAP became restricted to MAP-E, as per WG decision, applicability to 1:1 has been kept despite the lack of WG consensus (September 2012). > are we arguing over whether we should explicitly mention that fact in the MAP > draft. > or are we arguing over making it technically impossible to do MAP 1:1 mode? Suggested way to solve the problem: - Delete section 7.4 (whose ONLY purpose is to introduce 1:1 applicability). - In Appendix A, delete examples 4 and 5 (ONLY devoted to 1:1 mappings). RD > > cheers, > Ole > >>> -----Message d'origine----- >>> De : Ole Troan [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Envoyé : jeudi 14 février 2013 11:14 >>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >>> Cc : [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Objet : Re: [softwire] #25: Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode? >>> >>>> #25: Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode? >>> >>> OK, so here is a task for whomever thinks MAP 1:1 mode should >>> be removed. >>> >>> - what does "remove MAP 1:1 mode mean"? >>> - please suggest text changes to the mechanism that removes 1:1 mode. >>> >>> given that my opinion is that 1:1 mode is an unremovable part >>> of MAP, the question just doesn't make sense to me. >>> >>> I don't want this issue to be an excuse to block a last call, >>> can we quickly resolve this, and can we agree to drop it if >>> there are no significant contributions within the next week? >>> >>> cheers, >>> Ole >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The WG discussed several times this point (refer to the mailing list >>>> archives). >>>> >>>> MAP1:1 mode is a particular mode which may re-use some of >>> the provisioning >>>> methods defined for MAP. >>>> >>>> MAP1:1 vs. Lw4o6: >>>> * MAP1:1 is not fully stateless. >>>> * Lw4o6 is a standalone specification which provides the >>> same service as >>>> MAP1:1. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>> -------------------------------------+------------------------- >>> ------------ >>>> Reporter: | Owner: >>> draft-ietf-softwire- >>>> [email protected] | [email protected] >>>> Type: defect | Status: new >>>> Priority: major | Milestone: >>>> Component: map-e | Version: >>>> Severity: - | Keywords: >>>> >>> -------------------------------------+------------------------- >>> ------------ >>>> >>>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/ticket/25> >>>> 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
