all,

I have posted a new revision which implements all the agreed resolutions in
Orlando. including renaming the example sections referring to 1:1.

new draft and diffs are available here:

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-05

I have also closed the tickets as agreed in Orlando. please do not reopen them.

this draft should now be ready for a WGLC.

Best regards,
Ole





> hi,
> 
> as agreed in the meeting here is the summary of the discussion of the MAP 
> open issues.
> the plan is to leave these open for discussion for a week (until next Monday),
> then issue revision -05, that we will ask to be last called in the WG.
> 
> #18     Title and file name of the MAP-E draft need to be updated       
>          No-one in the room objected to keeping name as is.
>          Close ticket.
> 
> #19     IPv4 address superfluous in MAP-E Interface IDs map-e                 
>   
>          No one in the room objected to keeping interface-id as is in 
> revision 04.
>          Close ticket.
> 
> #21     Fragmentation must not be handled according to RFC 2473 map-e         
>   
>          It is an issue, but it is a generic problem that should be fixed in 
> a RFC2473bis.
>          Have descriptive text in the MAP document describing the issue and 
> referencing RFC4459.
> 
>          Current proposed text:
>          "Multiple BRs using the same anycast source address could send
>   fragmented packets to the same CE at the same time.  If the
>   fragmented packets from different BRs happen to use the same fragment
>   ID, incorrect reassembly might occur.  See [RFC4459] for an analysis
>   of the problem.  Section 3.4 suggests solving the problem by 
>   fragmenting the inner packet."
> 
>          Close ticket with above text.
>          Chairs to consider RFC2473bis
> 
> #25     Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode?
>          Remove section 7.4 (Address Independence). Rename 1:1 example.
> 
> - Offset 4 versus 6.
>  Discussion on value of wasting 3000 port versus simplicity of nibble 
> alignment.
>  No objection to moving default offset to 6 (from 4 in revision 04)
> 
> - Updated text for appendix B
>  Tom Taylor to propose updates to appendix B (GMA appendix).
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to