Joe, Please see my response inline with [Xiaohu]
From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@isi.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 1:15 AM To: Xuxiaohu; Fred Baker (fred); Wassim Haddad Cc: int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 Two things below: On 5/24/2016 1:54 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: Hi Joe, The draft is only intended to introduce one additional Softwires encapsulation technology referred to as IP-in-UDP. You had a similar draft that expired last summer targeted at the Softwires WG (draft-xu-softwire-ip-in-udp). Why is this now targeted at Intarea? [Xiaohu] I was told by the Softwires WG co-chairs that the Softwires WG is going to be shut down and therefore would not accept any new draft. Hence, I think the Intarea WG should be the right place for this work now. In other words, this encapsulation is only intended to be used within Softwires networks which are well-managed by a service provider. This encapsulation technology is not intended to be used within the Internet. As such, it seems absolutely possible to configure the I-IP transit core to carry an MTU at least large enough to accommodate the added encapsulation headers. Although it has been said in the draft that "IP-in-UDP is just applicable in those Softwires network environments where fragmentation on the tunnel layer is not needed." I can add a dedicated Applicability Statement section to emphasize that this Softwires encapsulation technology must only be used within Softwires networks which are well-managed by a service provider and must not be used within the Internet. Can this application statement address your concerns on fragmentation and reassembly? Here's the issue - I still do not think that this document should be a WG doc, and I frankly don't think it's constructive for you to try to address each flaw as it is raised. [Xiaohu] Trying to address each flaw as it is raised is not what we IETF attendees are expected to do for any draft in the IETF? Consider the following: A- you go to a restaurant and eat dinner B - I ask you if you like it, and you say "no" C- I ask why, and you say "it was too salty" Now, does that mean that if the cook corrects the salt level that you would now like the food? Probably not. The same is true here. [Xiaohu] It's a good example. Hence, for those people who say no to the WG adoption of this draft due to technical reasons, please tell us those technical reasons frankly. Let's see whether those reasons are true in the target scenario. And if they are true let's see whether they are addressable. I've given reasons I don't think it should be a WG doc. IF it is accepted as a WG doc, I might decide how much resources I want to devote to trying to address its deficiencies. [Xiaohu] I had expressed clearly that this Softwires encapsulation technology is just targeted for Softwires networks which are well managed. Therefore, fragmentation on the tunnel layer is not needed at all. I don't understand why you are still concerned about those things that would not be issues at all in the target scenario. Best regards, Xiaohu Joe
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
