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

Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com> Sun, 24 June 2012 05:36 UTC

Return-Path: <bingxuere@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 49F9321F86D1 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.371
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.373, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 S-3QXLyTvwQ4 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FE1821F86C7 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so5169763obb.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=A5u5HR8Qd1vxjHg82OJ+N6chpZVGuwPA5JTm8T9+ZR0=; b=M9ZXICRTyqHQyIPyB6Bz5/NQZLeiuFshBDSaEOOJfVQ46fZ0iOAJOVbE+9eCNAg7+A gyntf98NVVHEJwaDwyq5sfqHsyodBM6Nr0xH5Z816Q68GS0JXJQ3YExDWLpzcA0Q4JI/ 8IStqobEuhACLYjhhB4iS28x8tnmMnaClGWWtn5DaxJbIQQoZB0lVqLan6ugC8HpqiUq GAu4J7YjQNcGdKJFxQbANAZjo8QsiMhdei8JdLoNCkaFDq41W00Bst9B4E45b4ZV1gFe rL1G80xI58jkEksGLkA6LS01N8X1Zx26biC58qheLvgn3VQqgsRqKIoaaN2o52s3om7R 9SHA==
Received: by 10.50.149.198 with SMTP id uc6mr5240248igb.2.1340516193147; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.46.6 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:35:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH3bfABLVeMhij1DvUAUFYDUe3kCPDi9WMwGKvMwP1e8-Pem-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: softwires@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f3ba30d821cf904c3313f18"
Cc: Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does NOT reflect the consensus from the WG
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: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 05:36:35 -0000

 Hi all,

As we all know, once an individual draft is adopted as a WG draft, it
is owned by the whole WG, rather than just the editors. Just as Remi
said, the normal procedure to follow is to reach WG consensus _before_
posting a newly edited version.

>From draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03 to
draft-ietf-softwire-map-00, there are several changes between them. In
particular, the newly introduced "1:1 mode", which decouples IPv4 and
IPv6 addressing, has
never been
discussed openly in the WG mailing list, or even in the MAP design team either.

Actually, this "1:1 mode" is against the stateless-4v6-motivation
draft. The motivation draft has clearly defines the "Stateless 4/6
solution" as follows:

Stateless 4/6 solution denotes a solution which does not require any
per-user state (see Section 2.3 of [RFC1958]) to be maintained by any
IP address sharing function in the Service Provider's network. This
category of solutions assumes a dependency between an IPv6 prefix and
IPv4 address.

AFAIK what the WG has adopted MAP related draft is
draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03, NOT
draft-ietf-softwire-map-00. And the stateless solution should
“response to the solution motivation document” according to the
Softwire charter. That means draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 IS NOT
QUALIFIED to be a WG draft.

We can all recall that our softwire WG has worked on stateless
solutions for more than one and a half years, and we have achieved a
lot of work which has been documented in charter, stateless
motivation, 4rd-varients, MAP-03, etc. AFAIK all the authors have kept
the basic "stateless" principle and the MAP design team is also
working on it together to find a better algorithm, address format,
etc. So it is really not appropriate to make such changes when MAP is
adopted as a WG item in such a short time.

>From this perspective, draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 can only be regarded
as draft-XX-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-04. It is not even
the output of MAP design team.

Best wishes

==============================================
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude


Open source code:
lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/*
PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ *
===============================================