IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com> Wed, 27 June 2012 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <satoru.matsushima@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 2E35111E8096 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.412
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 nTYNDqVMOqnE for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81BE11E807F for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so1164678pbc.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=MS0IvtDfPOwniBx/xH6AsvQCJwFVAzcuCly8YTz4kXM=; b=z3lWwaA1o45rVqpuQ41/PC5yM+vbjXlsWrHpe5VcW/lDrdKy39CjxIop88KnPUiBCX IdYlLelEpt/+FhkWH6BIUa+9JQNoZsZxqRYS54IqWHo2OpeX+n2VKe8lsjcn0qZLfwj5 4vTR+BIfTpwYTFEa68XJbuLxFBRyrP2nr0hRS/kvtaDXFLgphPoHFSVyV1tLXa+NQmf4 7RhAjIzEymtnCHrShyEhzGFLK6YyDrhn1Y5AofpCQXIiWphFQwfSORmLwUel5Dd7UIaw keUcWiY3b9PupWDAUFqjOOuj/lbC1x7xM0oX7xtyjgxNg/4KxeE4gK5uhMVBeowRDdwV N7Uw==
Received: by 10.68.197.136 with SMTP id iu8mr59985272pbc.111.1340780264276; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.201.81.61] ([202.45.12.141]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nh6sm14279705pbc.44.2012.06.26.23.57.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC16W0CUWhwLD8NFGxsCHWGUtRatpSUvOfFAerriUbtuQLezcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:57:40 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1E6988FF-BFE6-4DA4-A7F6-B8BC4205967F@gmail.com>
References: <CC0F2D82.285F4%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4ireDBzacCFDYgh3kn3+MXx1=m3Kab6Wp7TFwnHeyfwDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH3bfADW1LN5nr1trd+Hu0tu4R3cHNEcx5yppN4p4Rh1bHaq1w@mail.gmail.com> <04DCBF0D-2B31-42E8-A363-22656FBAF447@gmail.com> <CAFUBMqURHk_AJfaTmx0vVJVuVFL0QaKZp15p=fZXX+Ftpf50cg@mail.gmail.com> <C41CE132-8C42-4898-B2DF-43BBFAE89515@gmail.com> <CAC16W0Ds-aRLMbyVdwifA3wjJwHuKOKjhkDLxxRm+X68wOnv7A@mail.gmail.com> <CBD94C41-5A67-4DDC-BDE4-514C7F186E8B@gmail.com> <CAC16W0CUWhwLD8NFGxsCHWGUtRatpSUvOfFAerriUbtuQLezcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peng Wu <pengwu.thu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: softwires@ietf.org, ian.farrer@telekom.de
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:57:45 -0000

On 2012/06/27, at 15:38, Peng Wu wrote:

>> Oh, you don't argue that OSPF covers an use case which is also covered by RIP. So then why are you arguing that an use case of MAP is eventually same with the LW46 use case?
> I'm clearly saying they have different use cases, but that's not the
> point. Let me repeat. If I want RIP, you cannot just place RIP into
> OSPF,

Agree on that it's not what I'm intended to. MAP thus never put DHCPv4 over IPv6, nor PCP into its specification. Please keep your mind in peace. 

> put an OSPF "face" on it, and force me to use the OSPF "suite"
> while the essence of the protocol I'm using is still RIP.

Not to force, MAP uses its MAP protocol to an use case which also could be covered by LW46's DHCPv4 over IPv6, or PCP. Correct?

cheers,
--satoru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email