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

[Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>]

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:
>
>>
>> 2012-06-25 à 16:24, Wojciech Dec:
>> ...
>> > The updated MAP draft does not change the MAP architecture nor its
>> technical underpinnings. In fact there are no changes, bar editorial to the
>> normative parts of MAP,
>>
>> 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?
>
>
>
>> 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.
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?
Note: I asked you how you would propose dealing with the DMR but no BMR
corner case, and await your proposal..

-Woj.

>
> Woj> Well, perhaps you would like to suggest what the CPE should do in the
> case the CPE is issued with a default mapping rule, ie a default route in
> map terms, and the absence of an assigned IPv4 address or other parameters
> (BMR). The above appears to be reasonable behaviour.
>
>>
>> => A carefully studied list of substantial changes MAP supporters have
>> found appropriate after the Paris meeting remains to be due.
>>
>
> Woj> Take it from the other people who have done implementations,
> technically there are no changes.
>
>
> In their implementation, maybe, but we talk about the specification.
>
> RD
>
>
>
> -Woj.
>
>
>>
>> > something that is proven by existing implementations prior to this
>> draft supporting the current draft.
>>
>> Please understand that your stating that some tests (for which we don't
>> have detailed reports) should be considered a proof that what you say is
>> true, is difficult to accept.
>> Especially if what you say seems contradicted by a verifiable fact (see
>> (*) above).
>>
>> RD
>>
>>
>
>