IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF5D1A00F9 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m9pdSE_5INJX for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08671A01CB for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5692B1B82A3 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA79190043; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nat64.meeting.ietf.org (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:15:12 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFFjW4jCueZSV5PQ=EvgCLugsW15eu669ZHAvstYdX29u5DRJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:40:18 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <8F3E2C06-4FB4-488D-AC52-FF597060B63D@nominum.com>
References: <20140211075445.17615.61208.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FD878467-904B-4441-95B4-11D4461A612E@employees.org> <CF237FDE.AACEB%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4jOBfvnqCV4UH8qt0HA5zZ-35f+q5ZepzjnwGX5_Oj9Gg@mail.gmail.com> <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2CDB8ED2@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> <CAFFjW4iP2KqNJFtJPr5rp0tzRwM5TPjaqiSP5r13JqbX46ao7w@mail.gmail.com> <CD1D4FF6-9509-43B4-AFC4-4F1AF99D0C4D@gmx.com> <CAFFjW4ibkj_xpTuXrbYjxkdxD=+qNzapCGPHJwXsZ-k0ZvGg-g@mail.gmail.com> <CF335888.AE89D%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4hv5WBiqyw9jM+ZoLMGR5k49pjKXG0epnhrsOGoBBKMYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFFjW4gyvcBTBDjE8nzGbPz8BcHUasHizzzry0cRF+J2T82uSQ@mail.gmail.com> <AD73A61E-1C8D-4C55-9E24-9CBFC3D44374@nominum.com> <CAFFjW4jCueZSV5PQ=EvgCLugsW15eu669ZHAvstYdX29u5DRJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/c_IEkEnrnXPkdDS516NDTI2O0R8
Cc: Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:15:21 -0000

On Mar 3, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> From a previous mail (that you perhaps missed):

I didn't miss it.   The distinction you are making is finally making sense to me after many repetitions.   Sorry for being dense.

I think what you are trying to avoid is the situation where a reader of this specification decides to implement it rather than a hub-and-spoke-only subset of MAP, even though MAP provides hub-and-spoke as well as the mesh mode.

But in practice, someone who does not want to implement full MAP probably _is_ going to prefer lw4over6.   Someone who reads both specs, wants to implement MAP anyway, and is seeing no market pressure to implement lw4over6 isn't going to decide to implement lw4over6 as well because of this text.

So I think the text actually says the right thing as currently written, and is likely to be more confusing to the intended reader with your proposed change.  That's my opinion as a participant, not as AD—if the working group disagrees with me, I'm totally okay with that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email