IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 26 February 2014 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 D16F01A031D for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:07:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 i40f1gjoZHwC for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:07:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [198.137.202.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB92C1A0311 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:07:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-10-61-106-63.cisco.com (173-38-208-169.cisco.com [173.38.208.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E89660C9; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:07:30 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D3C6C3ED-5507-4A85-A4F5-E56EFE8B4773"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <947F3013-19D5-4EB0-82DC-1246AE9362FE@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:07:27 +0000
Message-Id: <1BE1620D-0AB2-4B63-ACF6-9974E53627DE@employees.org>
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> <EBAECD54-9E78-4B07-BC8F-032B585AE0EE@gmail.com> <CAFFjW4hEBF3ZTnGXv+0ncTb981Mr_mdMW04EW=ZqBWFSRE9Q-Q@mail.gmail.com> <530CDF3D.3030908@gmail.com> <E540B187-E331-4FCD-B962-8FBCB4C945B8@nominum.com> <F70097FE-5D5A-4F91-AAF9-09F30FB74AF5@employees.org> <947F3013-19D5-4EB0-82DC-1246AE9362FE@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/o3phmFsR0b_Uf48MZdSZEWXDADk
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: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:07:38 -0000

On 25 Feb 2014, at 23:55 , Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:11 PM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> I think the point he was trying to make was that it isn't optimal to have two standards documents, specifying mechanisms where one is almost completely encompassed by the other. I say almost, because there might be some divergence in how tunnel endpoint addresses are used, and how fragmentation and ICMP is dealt with.
> 
> If this is indeed his point, I'm sure we're all sympathetic (I know I am) but it's not actionable, so we should move on.

au contrarie, it is clearly actionable, but I think the working group has done the best it can, so if there are actions, those should be elsewhere.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email