Hi Qi, the scope remains unchanged: Define DHCPv6 options for CPEs that a MAP CPE can use. It so happens that these same options can be used by any A+P CPE, and I have previously made the case that most of the existing proposals can use the same scheme of dhcp options: Please see - http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-13.pdf. This was the document that actually paved for discussion of what then became the uCPE. What more, based on the prototype implementations of the options defined in draft-ietf-map-dhcp-03 we know that they were perfectly capable of addressing MAP, Lw46, ds-lite, etc, CPEs. The fact that they have changed is to address the expressed reservations from parties about the options being "too MAP specific", about flags, naming, etc. I gave the outline of those changes before publishing, and they were also the subject of discussion by numerous parties (not just authors) before.
Anyway, for me, the previous "MAP centric" draft was ready for WG last call (bar a few edits). The changes made in -04 reflect the desire to actually have a set of options that address common concerns that apply to A+P. Perhaps you could explain what is the issue in this that needs to be discussed? Alternatively, we can proceed to nail any outstanding technical issues and have the draft sail quickly. Thanks. Woj. On 15 July 2013 19:41, Qi Sun <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Woj , > > The scope of the document has changed dramatically. I think it necessary > to get more consensus from the WG to do so. From my reading, it's something > different from the draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp. It's more like a > 'unified-dhcp'. We need more discussing on this. > > > Best Regards, > Qi > > > On 2013-7-16, at 上午12:01, Wojciech Dec wrote: > > Yes. See Mail of July 8. So far your objection is the only one, although I > don't quite see in it any technically grounded objection. > A fair bit of discussions between authors (MAP and lw46), softwire & dhc > chairs, and WG participants have taken place, and naturally will also be > held in Berlin. > > Re-spinning draft versions is easy. > > > On 15 July 2013 17:29, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Since this is a WG draft, did the authors ask the WG to update this? When >> the WG accepted this draft, it was only for MAP. But seems the scope has >> been changed. This should start as an Individual draft. I will recommend to >> revert back to the last version and present this in Berlin to replace the >> MAP draft if the WG agrees with it. >> >> >> From: Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> >> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:43 AM >> To: Qi Sun <[email protected]> >> Cc: Softwires-wg <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Changes to DHCP MAP Option draft >> >> >> 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. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
