IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 04 March 2014 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7171A01A7 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:03:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZrvRYNxi6vAk for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:02:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [198.137.202.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48391A0117 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:02:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-10-61-105-254.cisco.com (173-38-208-170.cisco.com [173.38.208.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 386DA5FD4; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 07:02:53 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_24C27D69-2045-4486-9B68-F569F4B4526A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <5315E780.3090009@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:27:03 +0000
Message-Id: <265BCDE8-F364-48B2-A35E-0C577A0ECAAA@employees.org>
References: <20140211075445.17615.61208.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFFjW4jOBfvnqCV4UH8qt0HA5zZ-35f+q5ZepzjnwGX5_Oj9Gg@mail.gmail.com> <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2CDB8ED2@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> <CAFFjW4iP2KqNJFtJPr5rp0tzRwM5TPjaqiSP5r13JqbX46ao7w@mail.gmail.com> <CD1D4FF6-9509-43B4-AFC4-4F1AF99D0C4D@gmx.com> <CAFFjW4ibkj_xpTuXrbYjxkdxD=+qNzapCGPHJwXsZ-k0ZvGg-g@mail.gmail.com> <CF335888.AE89D%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4hv5WBiqyw9jM+ZoLMGR5k49pjKXG0epnhrsOGoBBKMYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFFjW4gyvcBTBDjE8nzGbPz8BcHUasHizzzry0cRF+J2T82uSQ@mail.gmail.com> <AD73A61E-1C8D-4C55-9E24-9CBFC3D44374@nominum.com> <CAFFjW4jCueZSV5PQ=EvgCLugsW15eu669ZHAvstYdX29u5DRJw@mail.gmail.com> <8F3E2C06-4FB4-488D-AC52-FF597060B63D@nominum.com> <CAFFjW4jROzB_KEyoE7-8TXF2oqCZ+0f0n5zVzJrw+TOQg8Cxwg@mail.gmail.com> <04B66292-1A04-4DE9-BAE8-C3551FD518BD@nominum.com> <3ED101B2-F3BD-4504-BEE4-2E23CE08F019@e mployees.org> <C3BC7114-FC3F-41B8-84C1-8CDAF824FCEB@gmx.com> <5315E780.3090009@ericsson.com >
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/XMdLjDifEyIAKmJJE9yiOrTBFcU
Cc: Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 15:03:00 -0000

>> This could certainly save a spending the rest of the week micro-editing wording, so I’d be happy with it.
>> 
>> An extremely tentative further suggestion:
>> 
>> Should there be a draft which discusses the available softwire solutions more throughly (we would tackle this only after we’ve got the WGCLs completed, so there’s something to actually compare)?
>> 
>> A basket of vipers, I’m sure, but it wold give somewhere for a much more complete analysis of the pros and cons rather than a line and a half of analysis in the technology specific drafts.
> 
> I think could be an useful effort but I do think that writing an objective document is going to be extremely hard. I think we will have problems even agreeing on the axes of comparison, let alone the evaluation of the solutions along these axes.

I agree with Suresh. the outcome of the working group is to publish 5 largely equal mechanisms. then it is up to the market to decide which mechanism will be successful. I don't really see what more the IETF can do to contribute to that process.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email