Re: [Softwires] Changes to DHCP MAP Option draft

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Suresh / Yiu,

>From my perspective, the new version of the MAP DHCP draft is very much
aligned with the recent discussions that we've had in the SW & DHC
workgroups. There's still a little fine tuning needed, but it's pretty
close to what's been proposed in draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe and
definitely a big step in the right direction.

What I think the problem here is that we have had quite a lot of change
within the SW workgroup and the corresponding active drafts across the
last 6 months or so. The provisioning drafts are now being updated to
reflect these changes. At the same time, the provisioning mechanisms are
being updated and extended (e.g. DHCPv4overDHCPv6, dynamic v4 provisioning
and probably others).

In order to pull all of this together and to enable meaningful discussion,
I suggest that there needs to be an overview of the relevant provisioning
drafts, mechanisms, DHCP options and whatever else documented in one place
so that we can take stock of how (and maybe if) all of this works together.

If people agree that this is the right way forward, I'll volunteer to put
this overview together. I would also ask for another volunteer to assist,
though as I'm sure that I don't have the complete overview.

If there's still space on the agenda for Berlin, then we can use this as
the basis of the discussion.

Cheers,
Ian




On 17/07/2013 23:23, "Suresh Krishnan" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Hi Yiu,
>  As Tomek said we discussed this a bit in Orlando. If you are concerned
>about this, we can do a short call on the list and follow up at the
>meeting to see if there are any objections in the wg. Does that work for
>you?
>
>Thanks
>Suresh
>
>On 07/15/2013 12:48 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
>> Woj,
>> 
>> I am not objecting it. I just stated the new draft has been updated the
>> scope w/o getting explicit consent from the ML.
>> 
>> BR,
>> Yiu
>> 
>> From: Wojciech Dec <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Date: Monday, July 15, 2013 12:01 PM
>> To: "Yiu L. LEE" <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Cc: Softwires-wg <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Changes to DHCP MAP Option draft
>> 
>> Yes. See Mail of July 8. So far your objection is the only one, although
>> I don't quite see in it any technically grounded objection.
>> A fair bit of discussions between authors (MAP and lw46), softwire & dhc
>> chairs, and WG participants have taken place, and naturally will also be
>> held in Berlin.
>> 
>> Re-spinning draft versions is easy.
>> 
>> 
>> On 15 July 2013 17:29, Lee, Yiu <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>>     Since this is a WG draft, did the authors ask the WG to update this?
>>     When the WG accepted this draft, it was only for MAP. But seems the
>>     scope has been changed. This should start as an Individual draft. I
>>     will recommend to revert back to the last version and present this
>>     in Berlin to replace the MAP draft if the WG agrees with it.
>> 
>> 
>>     From: Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]
>><mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:43 AM
>>     To: Qi Sun <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     Cc: Softwires-wg <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     Subject: Re: [Softwires] Changes to DHCP MAP Option draft
>> 
>> 
>>     Yes, there was a long thread started by Tomek. Given that the option
>>     is applicable beyond MAP a *suggestion* was to rename it. I'm
>>     personally ok either way. The "Softwire46" option is the currently
>>     proposed name.
>> 
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Softwires mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires