Re: [Softwires] Moving forward with 4rd-T, 4rd-E & 4rd-U

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 03 February 2012 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
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 A633A21F85F0 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:00:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 HOFLlOFfjcgH for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:00:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDB221F85CE for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 07:00:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pbdy7 with SMTP id y7so3506352pbd.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:00:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=2jpqtUPmu6Ex2qP7IQ3Lh/C/PG2d5cG52QQDscI0N+8=; b=qsvRNIQACj0euUOCwmRxqCORsBxMCZl2kFrht+UZL9t6H0fNV7YmQMsJHc8ef4jOz1 ECOfa9b+OAfxTTshZCwYdBdpS3HJrG+lCmonMg6NXbXtuNIrcfi1FwfzZ+maJxxDtSnh y3t8oJPey1hkH2AiTnVPP8Er5XZeme9tDDp3M=
Received: by 10.68.72.70 with SMTP id b6mr18194280pbv.58.1328281230057; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:00:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc-vpn7-1336.cisco.com (128-107-239-233.cisco.com. [128.107.239.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p9sm13633667pbb.9.2012.02.03.07.00.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:00:28 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Ole Troan <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <53ACB4FC-988F-443C-A936-1CA5B13180EB@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:00:22 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C5347921-B186-49B7-94BD-9D40828A1BA9@employees.org>
References: <B140D6B2-1B19-43D7-9B63-6BEA83CEB164@juniper.net> <3AAD65F3-5169-49B7-9698-E820EF419B35@employees.org> <53ACB4FC-988F-443C-A936-1CA5B13180EB@free.fr>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= <remi.despres@free.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Moving forward with 4rd-T, 4rd-E & 4rd-U
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:00:30 -0000

Remi, et al,

> This kind of table you have below is IMHO the tool we need at this stage :-).
> 
> It has however to be more detailed: so far, it covers 4rd-H (the header-mapping variant of the last 4rd-U), but not 4rd-E (its encapsulation variant).
> A 4 columns table would be ideal. Also, It could have a sign identifying points that are N in current drafts, but  could easily become Y if the final consensus is that they are worth the additional complexity.
> I can work on it if you are interested.

the design team, chartered by the chairs, has delivered its work to the working group for consideration.
the MAP design team did its pick of features that it found useful and valuable from the veritable smorgasbord of features that have been suggested. those choices have to a large extent been discussed on the list.

we do not, in my view, have multiple competing solutions, we are rather discussing different "feature profiles".

the MAP design team has proposed one "feature profile" for the working group. Remi has proposed another.

since the design team has finished the work it set out to do, I'd rather see the feature selection discussion on a working group document.

idea: would it be possible to pull out the "feature sections" of 4rd-U and publish that as a new draft. then with detailed descriptions of the features, the working group can decide on what should be added or replaced in the MAP documents?

cheers,
Ole