Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-08.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

Re-,

It seems we agree on the provisioning part of the discussion. The MAP document should be sufficient in its own and should not make any assumption on how configuration parameters are provisioned. This can be done manually or dynamically (e.g., dhcp). So, any reference to a provisioning means should be informative, and even better be removed in favor of a single pointer to the unified CPE, where all this is discussed. 

Then, to the question why I'm asking for this I-D to be referenced as normative and not informative, the answer is that the generic bootstrapping logic described in the unified CPE must be followed by all softwire solution flavors. That's the minimum bar I see if we really want all a consistency to be ensured. Ideally, the CE part of all solutions should be documented in the unified CPE while the BR/lwAFTR parts in MAP and lw4o6 document, but I won't ask for that.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Ole Troan [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Envoyé : mardi 13 août 2013 11:46
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
>Cc : [e-mail]
>Objet : Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-08.txt
>
>Med,
>
>> The documents should be cross-references, that's clear.
>>
>> If I recall well what was discussed (and which I assumed agreed) in
>Atlanta, is the unified CPE draft governs the CE side for all softwire
>flavors. The consequence is provisioning discussion in particular should be
>removed from MAP, LW4ov6, etc documents ... instead be discussed
>exclusively in the unified CPE I-D.
>>
>> I will refer to Suresh on this point since he was present during that
>discussion and also because this is a action to preserve the coherency of
>the overall ongoing specification efforts conducted by the WG.
>
>the MAP document only specifies how a CE must function and what parameters
>must be provisioned. there is no provisioning discussion there to remove as
>far as I can see. MAP as a mechanism should stand on its own.
>
>the unified CPE effort, if successful, is trying to create a coherent
>picture of all the different mechanisms to make it possible to support all
>of them in a single CPE. my understanding of the unified CPE effort was
>that it was NOT going to define protocol, but only specify how mechanisms
>co-exist.
>
>cheers,
>Ole