Re: [Softwires] MAP documents - next steps

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Wed, 01 February 2012 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.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 D96DD21F8A2F for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:13:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.944
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.944 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.355, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 6irN+atgwfsr for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:13:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A8221F8A8F for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wgbdt10 with SMTP id dt10so1004182wgb.13 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.94.68 with SMTP id da4mr41420276wib.22.1328105626794; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-townsley-8715.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q7sm45023269wix.5.2012.02.01.06.13.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <5AAB067C-B5EF-4F75-B844-AFC33A96261C@employees.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:13:42 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <97737FB3-6A47-4530-BE58-68209022D155@townsley.net>
References: <5AAB067C-B5EF-4F75-B844-AFC33A96261C@employees.org>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP documents - next steps
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: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:13:53 -0000

While I appreciate the functional modularity in understanding the solution space, I do wish that DT had come up with a way to make this one document to present to the world rather than four. I fear organ rejection when tossing a list of RFCs for one function to the CPE industry. 

In current form, each document has more or less than 10 pages of substantive text, with considerable overlap between them (how many "framework" and "architecture" sections do we really need for what are really just two variants of something 95% the same?). As further evidence of the problem, there are no less than 19 references to mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port from draft-mdt-softwire-map-translation-00. One page has 5 references alone. It's is like reading a single book with every other page in a different binding. 

Could we not eliminate the overlap, and just boil this down to one less than 40 page document? In fact, I bet if you tried you could get it down to half that. Looks like Remi's new document is on the right track in this regard. 

I'm in favor of the chairs stating that we will adopt a WG document based on the text in these documents, but I would like to see a stipulation that they be combined into one (perhaps two but with only the DHCP option separate) and the overlap eliminated among MAP, T and E eliminated. 

- Mark


On Jan 30, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Ole Trøan wrote:

> hi,
> 
> the MAP (Mapping of address and port) design team has now written and published the following sets of drafts.
> 
> the base document (port mapping algorithm):
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03
>  http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03.txt
> 
> the encapsulation document (MAP-E):
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00
> 
> the translation document (MAP-T):
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-map-translation-00
> 
> the DHCP option (MAP-DHCP):
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option-02
> 
> there is a MAP deployment document coming soon.
> 
> the solution described in this set of documents, are written to satisfy the following from the softwires charter:
>   4. Developments for stateless legacy IPv4 carried over IPv6 
>      - develop a solution motivation document to be published as an RFC 
>      - develop a protocol specification response to the solution 
>        motivation document; this work item will not be taken through 
> 
> in the design team's view, this set of documents are ready to be adopted as working group documents.
> 
> comments?
> 
> for the MAP design team,
> Ole
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires