IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation

Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> Thu, 06 October 2011 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <despres.remi@laposte.net>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35F321F8CBC for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.344
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.464, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6vyhWThowz7O for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp25.services.sfr.fr (smtp25.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBAB21F8CB6 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2519.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 587EA700009B; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:23:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2519.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 34A4D7000061; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:23:48 +0200 (CEST)
X-SFR-UUID: 20111006172348215.34A4D7000061@msfrf2519.sfr.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <A6E71822-0DC5-49D6-B113-30701B623FE6@employees.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:16:56 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0CA7D5CF-BFE5-46FB-8948-9A51494CB8B0@laposte.net>
References: <F259BF79-B3C9-4434-AAC4-9F84B8D9A0FA@laposte.net> <16C872EF-F79E-4FD8-89B9-21B50129BA70@employees.org> <2118E521-F0CC-46F3-9F63-0EC6893326C6@laposte.net> <A6E71822-0DC5-49D6-B113-30701B623FE6@employees.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:20:42 -0000

Le 7 oct. 2011 à 00:13, Ole Troan a écrit :

> Remi,
> 
>> May I suggest that, to be more constructive, you could first express your objections to the proposed unified mapping, rather than making a number of new proposals whose justifications are sometimes hard to understand, 
> 
> I'd rather that we agree on the requirements.
> my questions were against what requirements you based parts of your proposal on. are these new/different requirements from those I showed on the slide in Beijing?

Please send a copy of the slide you are referring to.
Thanks.
RD

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email