Re: [Softwires] MAP documents - next steps

Congxiao Bao <cx.cernet@gmail.com> Sat, 04 February 2012 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <cx.cernet@gmail.com>
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 15E3911E8091 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 18:43:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.765
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.765 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 SOJUbACPWVm0 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 18:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6841F11E8097 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 18:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pbcwz7 with SMTP id wz7so329719pbc.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:43:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5MF/joO7IYcnVtHWbCcEmnCHPhM2Cmg+039fTpQ2ggY=; b=BgtoRxT7+JsyDTGd66pPaJdHDXMGvwarTgvw32WzEgrPMFf6rzpVglJOgYwcw25rie r4vKfEz29NsYCS/9eblAeFk+iPT1voaTqr/6aJ9IJy2d5PSzL8ONWIejkH3evFPwcR5Q FYILJpaE4CPopbplU2kX8LA9MNF3CZpHEMDWo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.232.202 with SMTP id tq10mr23023051pbc.68.1328323432343; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:43:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.143.32.7 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 18:43:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F2B42AA.30200@cernet.edu.cn>
References: <5AAB067C-B5EF-4F75-B844-AFC33A96261C@employees.org> <97737FB3-6A47-4530-BE58-68209022D155@townsley.net> <E5DF2BDC-D67F-41FB-A891-64528E7AFA1F@employees.org> <4F2B42AA.30200@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:43:52 +0800
Message-ID: <CABv173UeqG+s89vv0_PrTH_n7+vA3zERpfR3qz=sCFwUEHUzUg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Congxiao Bao <cx.cernet@gmail.com>
To: Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d6e854ea1904b81a6634
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP documents - next steps
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: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 02:43:55 -0000

I support to have this set of drafts adopted as WG documents.

Congxiao

2012/2/3 Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>

> 于 2012/2/1 22:33, Ole Trøan 写道:
>
> 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.
>>
>
> I agree with Ole.
>
> Regards,
>
> xing
>
>
>
> cheers,
>> Ole
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/softwires<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/softwires<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>
>