Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexistence RequirementI-D

[marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>]

Remi,

as editor of the document, my task is to reflect the WG consensus in the 
document.
So far, i only see you supporting for this i.e. i haven't received any 
other comment on this respect.

So, if other people care to comment on this, and the WG express that 
they are ok with including this in the document, i would do that.

Regards, marcelo


Rémi Després escribió:
> Hi Marcello,
>
> You may not remember my e-mail of may 22:
> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00808.html,
>
> It dealt with the relationship between
> - my draft-despres-v6ops-apbp-00 (APBP)
> - your draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00
>
> Since the matter of the APBP I-D fits in the scope of your Requirement 
> I-D, I take the opportunity of a reminder to (hopefully) clarify the 
> subject.
>
>
> Your Requirement draft is about
>  "IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence and Transition: Requirements for solutions".
> Its scope, defined in the introduction, is:
>  "requirements for solutions to IPv4/IPv6 coexistence and eventual
> transition in a scenario in which dual stack operation is not the norm"
> It includes, among others, scenarios for:
> A. "an IPv4 system connecting to an IPv4 system across an IPv6
> network"
> B. "an IPv6 system connecting to an IPv4 system".
>
> Now, in the APBP draft:
> - Section 2 introduces a new scenario for A.
> - Section 5.2 introduces a new scenario for a variant of B (where the
> IPv6 system is modified to obtain E2E IPv4 transparency for IPv4/IPv6
> encapsulated packets)
>
> The purpose of these new scenarios is:
> - Scalability (scenario A)
> - E2E transparency (scenario B)
>
>
> To introduce visibility of these scenarios in your draft without too 
> much reorganization, I suggest this possibility:
>
> In your I-D,
>  " 2.1.2 Scenarios that do not require translation
>    2.1.3 Scenarios that require translation "
> would be replaced by:
>  " 2.1.2 Scenarios that do not require translation between IPv6 and IPv4
>      2.1.2.1 Scenarios based only on tunnels
>              <current 2.1.2 text>
>      2.1.2.1 Scenarios combining tunnels and address-port borrowing
>          < A text, not too long, I could volunteer to provide >
>    2.1.3 Scenarios that require translation between IPv6 and IPv4
>              <current 2.1.3 text > "
>
>
> The questions are then:
> - Is it agreed that something needs to be done? (And if not, what 
> objections need to be discussed)
> - If it is agreed, are there better ways to include APBP scenarios in 
> the Requirement I-D?
>
>
> Regards.
>
> Rémi
>
>