IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] Fw: I-D Action: draft-mawatari-softwire-464xlat-00.txt

Nejc Škoberne <nejc@skoberne.net> Thu, 24 November 2011 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <nejc@skoberne.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 564AC21F8B59 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:40:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Sfq-k6GeCAD6 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:40:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tnode.com (common.tnode.com [91.185.203.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC8421F8B52 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:40:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.tnode.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571FB22787F4 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:40:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.tnode.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.tnode.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 153tBv2Nt+CY for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:40:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.15.133] (89-212-50-81.static.t-2.net [89.212.50.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nejc@skoberne.net) by mail.tnode.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1564A22787F2 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:40:30 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4ECE3B3C.8070703@skoberne.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:40:28 +0100
From: Nejc Škoberne <nejc@skoberne.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: softwires@ietf.org
References: <20111016084011.28691.24648.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20111016175357kawashimam@mail.jp.nec.com>
In-Reply-To: <20111016175357kawashimam@mail.jp.nec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Fw: I-D Action: draft-mawatari-softwire-464xlat-00.txt
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, 24 Nov 2011 12:40:35 -0000

Dear Masanobu,

> I would appreciate it if you could comment to our document.

as I said at IETF 82 in Taipei, I hope you will provide further 
motivation for your solution. As far as I know, the only one now
is that "RFC6145 is the only thing the CPE has to be compatible with"
in order to make this work. How is this different from "RFCXXXX
(eg. RFC 6333) is the only thing the CPE has to be compatible with
in order to make DS-Lite work?

Also, it would be great if you expressed effort on trying to merge
your solution with other proposed solutions in some way. As far as
I see it at the moment, the idea is to have few final solutions
which will be pushed forward by this WG.

Thanks,
Nejc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email