Re: [multrans] Updated version of the multicast PS draft

[<[e-mail]>]

Hello all,
 
I echo Tina's suggestion to edit and share a discussion between Problem Statement draft authors and me to multrans list.
 
Xiaohong: Comment #1 on section 2.2
To be more consistent with section 3, IMHO, it is also worth mention that when receiver and source are of different IP address family, in particular, IPv6 receiver and IPv4 source in NAT64 case, issues raise. For this purpose, propose add something like this:
"For the sake of good use of scared IPv4 address recourses,it is also likely, 
 during transion period, that terminal devices are only provisioned 
 with an IPv6 prefix, but the multicast content is still IPv4-formatted.
 As a result, IPv6 receivers need ways to receive IPv4-formatted multicast
  content."
 Christian: Re comment #1, I propose the following additional sentence in section 2.2: "Likewise, the global IPv4 address depletion encourages the development of IPv6 receivers while contents may very well remain IPv4-formatted. There is therefore a need to make sure such IPv6 receivers can access IPv4-formatted contents during the transition period."
 Jacni>: It's good! :-)
 
Xiaohong: Comment #2 on section 3.1.
Propose to change the wording of:  "this scenario is prioritized by service providers, *including* those that are deploying or will deploy DS-Lite CGN capabilities for the sake of IPv4 service continuity. " to " this scenario is prioritized by service providers, *especially* those that are deploying or will deploy DS-Lite CGN capabilities for the sake of IPv4 service continuity. " , because IMHO, other operators, for example, who are deploying NAT444,  may not prioritize this use case.
Christian: Re your comment #2, I'm not sure we need that subtlety ("especially" instead of "including") as we don't make any specific assumption about the various situations that may arise. I therefore suggest to leave the text as is. But I'll wait for the feedback of my fellow co-authors before posting an updated version of the draft based upon your comments.
 
 
Cheers,
Xiaohong
opensource A+P: http://opensourceaplusp.weebly.com/
 

________________________________

	·¢¼þÈË: Tina Tsou [mailto:[e-mail]] 
	·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2011Äê6ÔÂ9ÈÕ 1:22
	ÊÕ¼þÈË: 'Jacni Qin'; JACQUENET Christian OLNC-NAD-TIP
	³­ËÍ: DENG Xiaohong ESP/PEK; 'Lee, Yiu'; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC-NAD-TIP
	Ö÷Ìâ: RE: RE:Updated version of the multicast PS draft
	
	
	Friends,
	Would you send your technical comments to the multrans list, and then broader audience can listen to?
	 
	We keep our promises with one another ¨C no matter what!
	 
	Best Regards,
	Tina TSOU
	http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
	 
	From: Jacni Qin [mailto:[e-mail]] 
	Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 2:09 AM
	To: [e-mail]
	Cc: DENG Xiaohong ESP/PEK; Tina Tsou; Lee, Yiu; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
	Subject: Re: RE:Updated version of the multicast PS draft
	 
	Re-,
	
	Thanks Xiaohong for the comments,
	On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:44 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:
	Hello Xiaohong,
	 
	Thanks for both your kind words and your feedback :-)
	 
	Re: your comment #1, I propose the following additional sentence in section 2.2: "Likewise, the global IPv4 address depletion encourages the development of IPv6 receivers while contents may very well remain IPv4-formatted. There is therefore a need to make sure such IPv6 receivers can access IPv4-formatted contents during the transition period."
	
	Jacni>: It's good! :-)
	
	
	Cheers,
	Jacni
		 
		Re: your comment #2, I'm not sure we need that subtlety ("especially" instead of "including") as we don't make any specific assumption about the various situations that may arise. I therefore suggest to leave the text as is.
		 
		But I'll wait for the feedback of my fellow co-authors before posting an updated version of the draft based upon your comments.
		 
		Thanks again!
		 
		Cheers,
		 
		Christian.