Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

[Ian Farrer <[e-mail]>]

This could certainly save a spending the rest of the week micro-editing wording, so I’d be happy with it.

An extremely tentative further suggestion:

Should there be a draft which discusses the available softwire solutions more throughly (we would tackle this only after we’ve got the WGCLs completed, so there’s something to actually compare)?

A basket of vipers, I’m sure, but it wold give somewhere for a much more complete analysis of the pros and cons rather than a line and a half of analysis in the technology specific drafts.

Ian


Discretion is the better part of valour.

I would be happy with this as a possible solution.

I think that there’s a need for an overall softwire doc that tackles the

On 4 Mar 2014, at 09:42, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> If, as you say, Ian is happy to make the change that you've proposed, then I have no problem with that.   However, let's not needlessly delay both of these drafts arguing about marketing boilerplate.   The text as written is not a sufficiently glowing recommendation of MAP, but it doesn't need to be, for two reasons.   First, this is not a draft about MAP.   Secondly, everybody already knows what they intend to implement anyway, so getting this text exactly perfect will make not one iota of difference in regards to who implements what.
> 
> I have had success in the past by removing contentious text. I think that could work here, just remove this paragraph:
> 
> "It does not offer direct, meshed IPv4 connectivity between subscribers without packets traversing the AFTR.
> If this type of meshed interconnectivity is required, [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] provides a suitable solution."
> 
> or alternatively, the last sentence.
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires