Re: [Softwires] MAP documents - next steps

[Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>]

Fully agree with Ole.
We've been back and forth on the one-draft, many-drafts, too-many-drafts
discussion so many times, and it's not productive. We have a broad group of
individuals who are interested in pursuing the drafts. Given that this is a
WG that is meant to operate for its participants, as opposed to against
them (as has been the case), having progress in the form of document
adoption would be a good step forward.

-Woj.

On 1 February 2012 15:33, Ole Trøan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>
> cheers,
> Ole
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>