IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-08.txt

<ian.farrer@telekom.de> Wed, 14 August 2013 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ian.farrer@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2FB21F9655 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3pjpckLxayD4 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail93.telekom.de (tcmail93.telekom.de [80.149.113.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F1221F9654 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from he110890.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.92.131]) by tcmail91.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 14 Aug 2013 17:21:00 +0200
Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by he110890 ([10.134.92.131]) with mapi; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:21:00 +0200
From: ian.farrer@telekom.de
To: otroan@employees.org, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:20:57 +0200
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-08.txt
Thread-Index: Ac6ZAeG5aNrV1wZyS1iChcOOS8c+cQ==
Message-ID: <CE315C47.83213%ian.farrer@telekom.de>
In-Reply-To: <7A1D5E0A-55FE-4CF6-9444-A1BE212BB451@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-08.txt
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:21:07 -0000

Hi Ole,

I'm a little late to the conversation, but picking up on
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg05636.html

Cheers,
Ian


>
>I'm not necessarily against removing the normative reference to the MAP
>DHCP draft. I am against a reference to the unified DHCP document. reason
>being as I stated above, there should not be a dependency from MAP to
>DHCP. there is also the issue of not blocking MAP document progress
>waiting for the progress of the unified CPE document.

[ian] There is no Unified DHCP document. The Unified CPE doc describes
generic logic for using parameters, rather than how those parameters are
provisioned. Section 3.3 does describe how this is applied using DHCP as
an example (based on softwire-map-dhcp), though it states that other
methods may be used. It states that DHCP provisioning should be
implemented.

Is this the (technical) problem between the two? If we align the
requirement for implementing DHCP based provisioning between the two
drafts, does that fix the first issue above?


>
>cheers,
>Ole
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>Softwires@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email