[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: changes to draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt



Rémi Després escribió:
marcelo bagnulo braun  - Le 7/19/08 4:30 PM :

BTW, One may also think that this draft is kind of weird, in the sense that it identifies the 3 scenarios mentioned above and then only defines the requirements for one of them, i.e. the one requiring translation.
 From a document perspective, we can do 3 things, i guess.
Either we keep it as it is, even if it may seems somehow strange.
Or we split in two documents, one as the overview of the scenarios and another one with the requirements for translation, (and eventually having two more documents with requirements for the other scenarios,
or we add to this document the requiremetns for the other scenarios)

I personally preffer the first or the second one, since i would like to wrap up the transalion requireemtns asap.

Marcello,

You have well clarified where there is a short term problem, which explains some of our previous mail exchanges.

Since the document deals with requirements only for v4-v6 translation mechanisms, what about making it clear in the title, e.g.:

"Pv4/IPv6 Coexistence - Requirements for solutions based on IPv4-IPv6 translations".

cause due the dual nature of the document, the current tittle actually fits the first part of the doccment

gards.

Rémi