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

[Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>]

On 26 June 2012 10:37, Rémi Després <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> 2012-06-26 à 09:37, Wojciech Dec:
>
> On 26 June 2012 09:13, Rémi Després <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 2012-06-26 à 08:04, Wojciech Dec a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 25 June 2012 17:28, Rémi Després <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>
> Having asked several times for a list of substantial evolutions from
>>> previous MAP drafts, with their justifications, and having received no
>>> answer, I see this statement as an indirect but first answer.
>>>
>>
>> Woj> You were provided with an answer (pls see Ole's mail).
>>
>>
>> Could you please indicate which one?
>>
>
> Since you claim there has been an answer, and suggest I find it, I suppose
> you can find it yourself.
> => Please answer (or implicitly acknowledge that the list of MAP
> substantial evolutions is still awaited).
>

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04358.html
It's a short list :
- MAP-E and MAP-T drafts have been merged.
- Handling of the corner cases regarding DMR but no BMR added
- Non normative text regarding use (eg backwards compatibility) added.



>
> But it doesn't seem acceptable (*):
>>> - AFAIK, the added 5th parameter of basic mapping rules is more than
>>> editorial
>>>
>>
>> Woj> Please indicate what the new parameter in your opinion is.
>>
>>
>> In Section 5, "Forwarding mode" has become a BMR 5th parameter.
>> In Section 5 of the mdt draft of january 30, there were only 4 BMR
>> parameter.
>>
>> Anything missed?
>>
>
> Ok, so fair point. MAP-E and -T have been merged in the draft, based on
> previous feedback from the WG incl discussions at the last meeting. We
> thought having less drafts is more as was discussed at the last meeting.
> The updated draft also highlights how much commonality there is.
>
>
> - A parameter PER DOMAIN was an obvious result of a merger.
> - But a parameter PER RULE is a significant novelty.
> OK?
>
> That was not intended, and appears to be a genuine mistake in draft-00.
Thanks for spotting.
It is a parameter per domain, as discussed on the design team alias.

-Woj.

>
> We're welcome to suggestions on how to provide information on which
> transport mode to use, or if the merger is no desired.
>
>
>> - I didn't find the equivalent of the following sentence in previous
>>> drafts: "A MAP-E CE provisioned with only a Default Mapping Rule, as in the
>>> 1:1 case, and with no IPv4 address and port range configured by other
>>>  means, MUST disable its NAT44 functionality."
>>>
>>
>> Is there such an equivalent?
>> Please answer (not answering the question isn't a way to eliminate it).
>>
>
> Equivalent of what?
>
>
> Is there in previous drafts the sentence above (or an equivalent) "A MAP-E
> CE... MUST disable its NAT44 functionality."?
> - If yes, please indicate where.
> - If not, IT IS an evolution, to be identified as such.
>
>
> Note: I asked you how you would propose dealing with the DMR but no BMR
> corner case, and await your proposal..
>
>
> - In the 4rd draft, appendix D, there is a deployment example with only on
> mapping rule (the BR mapping rule, AKA the DMR in your MAP draft).
> - If this isn't sufficient to answer your concern, please point to the
> mail in which you asked the unanswered question.
>
> Thanks,
> RD
>
>