Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does NOT reflect the consensus from the WG

[Satoru Matsushima <[e-mail]>]

Hi Maoke-san,

On 2012/06/25, at 12:07, Maoke wrote:

> hi Satoru-san, Qiong, and all, 
> 
> i think the current 1:1 mode text of the draft should be tuned or, it would be better, to be removed.
> 
> technically, i expect MAP as a completely per-session, per-subscriber stateless solution and therefore per-subscriber mapping rule is not accepted. in theory, of course, it could be an extension mode of MAP operation but, in practice, it makes the solution quite fuzzy, the code quite heavy. we (me and my company) wouldn't like to have a standard where supporting for both per-subscribe stateless and per-subscribe stateful mappings should be done together within a monolithic implementation. we support the lightweight 4over6 as an independent standard. 
> 

Hmm, I've read 'draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite' as you called 'lightweight 4over6'. LW46 for short, it looks me that MAP just provides LW46 a provisioning means which would be described in the section 5, or appendix section because following text described in section 5:

"Other optional alternatives to retrieve the public address and port-
 set also exist.  The specific protocol extensions are out of scope in
 this document, however some alternatives are mentioned in the Appendix
 section."

I think that MAP and LW46 is in relation of mutual complement. MAP doesn't obsolete LW46, and vice versa.
Thought?

cheers,
--satoru