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

Hi Satoru, 

As you said, the draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 (actually the draft-XX-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-04) has been discussed in the DT. Any consensus has been achieved among within the DT? And has the softwire working group adopted all the changes you have put in the "new" MAP draft?

Thank you!

Qi Sun

From: Satoru Matsushima
Date: 2012-06-24 14:00
To: Qiong
CC: softwires; Yong Cui
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does NOT reflect the consensus from the WG
Hi Qiong,

I'm disagree with your opinion.

1. Recent changes in draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 has been discussed in the DT.
2. MAP just covers so called '1:1 mode' with most granular mapping rule for CEs provisioning, which is as one of its characteristics.
3. The motivation draft does not restrict that as you stated, just 'assumed', it's neither 'MUST' nor 'SHOULD'.

Best regards,
--satoru

On 2012/06/24, at 14:35, Qiong 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

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