Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-04

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Martin,
> On 15 January 2014 19:40, Victor Kuarsingh<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>> >>Which seems wise given their somewhat contentious nature.  But then
>>> >>the entirely of Section 2 does exactly the opposite.  I don't know
>>> >>what the right answer is here, but maybe the right thing to do is
>>> >>delete Section 2.
>> >
>> >
>> >[VK]  The intention of this section was to explain that CGN may be used by
>> >operators and discuss some of the factors that may go (or have gone) into
>> >that decision.  The point in the abstract was intended to tell the reader
>> >that the authors were not suggesting that CGN was "good" or "needed".
>> >
>> >There are some important points that I think are important within the
>> >section (section 2), so perhaps if I/we can remove specific text that seems
>> >to given the impression that we are defending CGN, I can do so.
> I'd like to understand what you think is important here.  Much of the
> text explaining why CGN is used basically amounts to justification for
> it.
Is your concern that  the sentence "IPv6 is considered the strategic 
answer" in section 2 is not stressed enough?

Regards, Benoit
>
> In contrast, the list of requirements you provide is fairly neutral
> and seems to cover most of the reasons well enough for me at least.
>