Hello, Tomek, Two comments related to recent discussions:
1. The PSID-len parameter of section 4.5 MUST NOT be used in BMRs that apply to several CEs (the general case in stateless use of MAP). If 1:1 mapping must be covered by MAP (next point), this should be noted in the text. 2. Whether MAP must include specific parameters to support 1:1 mappings (namely PSID-len and PSID) doesn't seem to have reached consensus. As a minimum this justifies at this stage an editor's note (IMHO). Regards, RD Le 2013-02-25 à 11:36, Tomek Mrugalski <[email protected]> a écrit : > On 25.02.2013 11:17, [email protected] wrote: >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. >> >> Title : DHCPv6 Options for Mapping of Address and Port >> Author(s) : Tomasz Mrugalski >> Ole Troan >> Wojciech Dec >> Congxiao Bao >> Leaf Y. Yeh >> Xiaohong Deng >> Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-03.txt >> Pages : 20 >> Date : 2013-02-25 >> >> Abstract: >> This document specifies DHCPv6 options for the provisioning of >> Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) Customer Edge (CE) devices, based >> on the MAP paramaters defined in [I-D.ietf-softwire-map]. >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp > Dear group, > > This is an minor update to the map-dhcp draft. This time we made couple > small editorial changes in examples (we hope the examples are now easier > to read), updated authors affiliations, cleaned up references and fixed > issues reported by idnits. > > Cheers, > Tomek > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
