Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01

Qiong, all,

Le 2012-06-07 à 16:23, Qiong a écrit :

> Hi Ole,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 
> > I think we should still keep the initial feature of these solutions.
> 
> all the proposed solutions, including DS-lite shares a large set of commonalities. where the differences are more operational considerations and deployment choices than technical differences. do we need a separate protocol specification for each deployment choice?
>  
> I vote for describing the protocol specifications for different scenarios seperately.

+1
Also considering that:
- Draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01 has already reached a WG document status, and needs AFAIK no technical change to become an RFC
- It has no dependency on 4rd or MAP 
- There is even one more solution with different scope but commonality, namely 464XLAT currently discussed in v6ops

Regards,
RD

> Although they have some commonalities, there are still quite a lot of differences from techincal details for their own features. As we currently have three categories of solutions,  I think it will be easier and clearer for readers to understand each solution in seperated document.
> 
> Best wishes
> Qiong
>     
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires