Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-08.txt

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Med,

> It seems we agree on the provisioning part of the discussion. The MAP document should be sufficient in its own and should not make any assumption on how configuration parameters are provisioned. This can be done manually or dynamically (e.g., dhcp). So, any reference to a provisioning means should be informative, and even better be removed in favor of a single pointer to the unified CPE, where all this is discussed. 
> 
> Then, to the question why I'm asking for this I-D to be referenced as normative and not informative, the answer is that the generic bootstrapping logic described in the unified CPE must be followed by all softwire solution flavors. That's the minimum bar I see if we really want all a consistency to be ensured. Ideally, the CE part of all solutions should be documented in the unified CPE while the BR/lwAFTR parts in MAP and lw4o6 document, but I won't ask for that.

I see the relationship between the documents in the opposite way.
there are 2-5 independent mechanisms. the unified CPE document describes how these can be provisioned and ensures there is some consistency between how a CPE can support all the mechanisms. the unified CPE document was never intended to drive changes in the protocol specifications of the mechanisms themselves.

I'm not necessarily against removing the normative reference to the MAP DHCP draft. I am against a reference to the unified DHCP document. reason being as I stated above, there should not be a dependency from MAP to DHCP. there is also the issue of not blocking MAP document progress waiting for the progress of the unified CPE document.

cheers,
Ole