Re: [Softwires] Changes to DHCP MAP Option draft

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Ian, all,

I agree with you the changes are in the good direction and are much compliant draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe. 

IMHO, draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp is sufficient on its own to accommodate softwire-related needs. I understand this is only my opinion and that the WG may consider the companion dhc documents you mentioned as needed. In such case, draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe should be the place to specify under which conditions draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp or dhc I-Ds are to be followed.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la
>part de [e-mail]
>Envoyé : vendredi 19 juillet 2013 13:08
>À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Cc : [e-mail]
>Objet : Re: [Softwires] Changes to DHCP MAP Option draft
>
>Hi Suresh / Yiu,
>
>From my perspective, the new version of the MAP DHCP draft is very much
>aligned with the recent discussions that we've had in the SW & DHC
>workgroups. There's still a little fine tuning needed, but it's pretty
>close to what's been proposed in draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe and
>definitely a big step in the right direction.
>
>What I think the problem here is that we have had quite a lot of change
>within the SW workgroup and the corresponding active drafts across the
>last 6 months or so. The provisioning drafts are now being updated to
>reflect these changes. At the same time, the provisioning mechanisms are
>being updated and extended (e.g. DHCPv4overDHCPv6, dynamic v4 provisioning
>and probably others).
>
>In order to pull all of this together and to enable meaningful discussion,
>I suggest that there needs to be an overview of the relevant provisioning
>drafts, mechanisms, DHCP options and whatever else documented in one place
>so that we can take stock of how (and maybe if) all of this works together.
>
>If people agree that this is the right way forward, I'll volunteer to put
>this overview together. I would also ask for another volunteer to assist,
>though as I'm sure that I don't have the complete overview.
>
>If there's still space on the agenda for Berlin, then we can use this as
>the basis of the discussion.
>
>Cheers,
>Ian
>
>
>
>
>On 17/07/2013 23:23, "Suresh Krishnan" <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>
>>Hi Yiu,
>>  As Tomek said we discussed this a bit in Orlando. If you are concerned
>>about this, we can do a short call on the list and follow up at the
>>meeting to see if there are any objections in the wg. Does that work for
>>you?
>>
>>Thanks
>>Suresh
>>
>>On 07/15/2013 12:48 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
>>> Woj,
>>>
>>> I am not objecting it. I just stated the new draft has been updated the
>>> scope w/o getting explicit consent from the ML.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Yiu
>>>
>>> From: Wojciech Dec <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> Date: Monday, July 15, 2013 12:01 PM
>>> To: "Yiu L. LEE" <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> Cc: Softwires-wg <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Changes to DHCP MAP Option draft
>>>
>>> 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 <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]
>>><mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>     Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:43 AM
>>>     To: Qi Sun <[e-mail]
>>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>     Cc: Softwires-wg <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>     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
>>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwires mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Softwires mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires