IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Wed, 09 January 2013 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670DE21F8554 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:52:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H+8NmgphoNim for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:52:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C2E21F854D for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:52:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:660:3001:4012:245a:a34b:600:fe8b]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A146841494; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:51:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <50ED9248.8000306@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:52:40 +0100
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
References: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041E9D32@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041E9D48@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <01ab01cde953$1cbfed70$563fc850$@cisco.com> <CAH3bfAD+xumMtSWAm8bc_C-0FUBJZ_YXDJHwN9Xw0MNBnon=6w@mail.gmail.com> <037201cdeae9$b4109e80$1c31db80$@cisco.com> <50EA9909.4040401@viagenie.ca> <023501cdecf7$a19b9e20$e4d2da60$@cisco.com> <CAH3bfACunK1f0xad6FqvkNT8huRk8FU7U0J9SwrSmG82jLDvRg@mail.gmail.com> <0b8101cdee80$cd8962d0$689c2870$@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0b8101cdee80$cd8962d0$689c2870$@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:52:02 -0000

Le 2013-01-09 16:48, Dan Wing a écrit :
> I would really like to see the need for both PCP and DHCP before either
> working group adopts a mechanism.  If we don't do that now, the
> same question is likely to arise when during IETF last call or during
> IESG review.

Even if the DHCP mechanism would get chosen for LW4o6, I would argue 
that MAP_PORT_SET still has merit on its own, for the non-LW4o6 purposes 
we have described.

So I don't see the LW4o6 aspect as a killer, at all. It's just one 
potential customer.

Simon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email