Re: [Softwires] MAP documents - next steps

[Ole Trøan <[e-mail]>]

Mark,

> While I appreciate the functional modularity in understanding the solution space, I do wish that DT had come up with a way to make this one document to present to the world rather than four. I fear organ rejection when tossing a list of RFCs for one function to the CPE industry. 
> 
> In current form, each document has more or less than 10 pages of substantive text, with considerable overlap between them (how many "framework" and "architecture" sections do we really need for what are really just two variants of something 95% the same?). As further evidence of the problem, there are no less than 19 references to mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port from draft-mdt-softwire-map-translation-00. One page has 5 references alone. It's is like reading a single book with every other page in a different binding. 
> 
> Could we not eliminate the overlap, and just boil this down to one less than 40 page document? In fact, I bet if you tried you could get it down to half that. Looks like Remi's new document is on the right track in this regard. 
> 
> I'm in favor of the chairs stating that we will adopt a WG document based on the text in these documents, but I would like to see a stipulation that they be combined into one (perhaps two but with only the DHCP option separate) and the overlap eliminated among MAP, T and E eliminated. 

with regards to document organization we've been over that a few times. my understanding of the Beijing interim meeting was to have the organization of documents we have now. largely because there were discussions on different document status for the different documents. e.g. experimental versus standards track.

yes, it is certainly possible to merge the 3 documents (MAP, T, E), with separate sections that only apply to encapsulation and some that apply to translation. what I feat is that you will pollute the text with lots of "does not apply in the translation case", "fragmentation issues are slightly different", and so on.

this is obviously something the working group has to decide on, but I don't think that needs to be done before adopting this document set.

cheers,
Ole