Hi,
On 11 July 2013 15:04, Qi Sun <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Woj, > > > - Naming: The name of the option will be changed, tentatively, to > OPTION_S46_*. This it in line with the recognition that there is wider > applicability of the options. > > Would you please elaborate (sorry if I missed some of the discussions...)? > Yes, there was a long thread started by Tomek. Given that the option is applicable beyond MAP a *suggestion* was to rename it. I'm personally ok either way. The "Softwire46" option is the currently proposed name. > > > - Flags: The flags field will be removed from the options. To accomplish > this, what was previously known as the BMR/FMR option, which was using the > flag to make the difference, will now be recast as two separate "Basic > Rule" and a "Forwarding Rule" Options. > > From my understanding, the 'flags' are referred to those in MAP Rule > Option (rule-flags), right? Or do you mean the flags in MAP Container > Option will also be removed? > All flag fields removed. > > > - A new sub-section intended only for clients using the MAP algorithm > will be introduced, and will describe how the options apply to MAP > provisioning. > > I'm not quite sure about the content that you plan to provide. IMHO, the > DHCPv6 client (not a MAP DHCPv6 client) is only able to handle the DHCPv6 > related interactions, rather than MAP related interactions. If this part is > about how the client side uses the MAP options, maybe the MAP-E or the > Unified CPE is a more proper place to go, IMHO. > Well, the MAP Port Parameters option is clearly only applicable to a client that understands what it means. While having a separate, standalone 1-page draft for this single option is doable, it does become to look like unnecessary bureaucracy. DHCP Options are options after all... > > In addition, I notice in the current MAP option draft, the offset in MAP > Port Parameters Option is still 4, which is not consistent with the > draft-ietf-softwire-map-07. Maybe you can update it as well. > Yes, that will be updated. Thanks, Woj. > > > Best Regards, > Qi > > > On 2013-7-8, at 下午6:18, Wojciech Dec wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I've begun preparing the next ste of changes to the DHCP MAP option > draft, and would like to highlight the main changes. > > > > - Naming: The name of the option will be changed, tentatively, to > OPTION_S46_*. This it in line with the recognition that there is wider > applicability of the options. Furthermore the "Mapping" term will be > removed from the text, except when describing their use with MAP algorithm. > > - Default Mapping Rule: The DMR option will be removed, to allow the > re-use of the existing AFTR option, if desired and when applicable. > > - Flags: The flags field will be removed from the options. To accomplish > this, what was previously known as the BMR/FMR option, which was using the > flag to make the difference, will now be recast as two separate "Basic > Rule" and a "Forwarding Rule" Options. > > - Some of the generic DHCP requirements about known or unknown > processing appear to actually conflict with DHCP practice and will be > changed, eg an unknown sub-option should not lead to the entire option > being discarded. > > - A new sub-section intended only for clients using the MAP algorithm > will be introduced, and will describe how the options apply to MAP > provisioning. > > - Various other editorial changes to bring the text into shape. > > > > If you have any initial comments, reactions to the above, please let us > know. > > > > Regards, > > W. Dec > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
