Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:16:18 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : DHCPv6 Options for Mapping of Address and Port
	Author(s)       : Tomasz Mrugalski
                          Ole Troan
                          Congxiao Bao
                          Wojciech Dec
                          Leaf Y. Yeh
	Filename        : draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-01.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2012-08-24

Abstract:
   This document specifies DHCPv6 options for the provisioning of
   Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) Customer Edge (CE) devices, based
   on the MAP paramaters defined in [I-D.ietf-softwire-map].

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-01

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:33:35 +0200

> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-01.txt

Dear softwires!

draft-mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option-03 passed adoption call in June and
was adopted as draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-00. In the mean time, WG
decided that 1:1 mode should be removed from the main MAP draft.
It seemed reasonable that removing corresponding PORTPARAMS option
between individual -03 and wg-00 is ok, so authors did then when
uploading wg-00 draft.

The chairs have informed authors that technically WG reached consensus
on adopting idividual -03, not individual -03 + changes. Therefore this
-01 draft is a revert back to invidual -03.

Our belief is that this concludes the adoption process. Now that we are
done with it, let's decide what to do with PORTPARAMS option. Simply
speaking, PORTPARAMS option allow PSID configuration on a per-CPE basis.
A simple, direct question to the interested WG participants:

Do you want to keep PORTPARAMS option or get rid of it?

Cheers,
Tomek

---

From: Wojciech Dec <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:48:48 +0200

Hi Tomek,

thanks for re-posting.

> Do you want to keep PORTPARAMS option or get rid of it?

Given that the PORTPARAMS is a key and inherent configuration parameter to
MAP, it needs to be exposed as such via config protocol extensions for MAP
as in the posted draft.
Note: The WG already voted & approved/accepted the posted draft.

-Woj.

>
> Cheers,
> Tomek
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>