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

Hi,

IMO The MAP solution fullfills most, if not all of the points in the
stateless motivations draft. The fact that it can do more, or can be used
differently doesn't alter the solution.
Now, it would appear that you're arbitrarily trying to make sure that MAP
does not solve a problem you care about. This would require a change to the
MAP spec, and all it's predecessors, and also implementations which pre
date this draft.
It also raises the question of what should the solution to this problem,
which you appear to exclusively intend to be "another draft" ( that likely
happens to be your draft, but that is probably just a mere coincidence).
If the WG wants multiple solutions to the same problem, that's for the WG
to decide based on some rational argument. Breaking or changing a solution
just so that another solution can be given "exclusivity" to some problem
solution seems not rational.

The argument below, and it's a repeat of what you've stated earlier, does
not appear to be technically motivated. I would like to bring the
discussion to a technical level, but with you continuing to voice rhetoric
and not addressing the key question of what is the technical problem, it
appears difficult to proceed.

Regards,
Woj.

On 24 June 2012 07:35, Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com> wrote:

>  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/ *
> ===============================================
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>