Martin,
On 15 January 2014 19:40, Victor Kuarsingh<[email protected]> wrote:
>>Which seems wise given their somewhat contentious nature. But then
>>the entirely of Section 2 does exactly the opposite. I don't know
>>what the right answer is here, but maybe the right thing to do is
>>delete Section 2.
>
>
>[VK] The intention of this section was to explain that CGN may be used by
>operators and discuss some of the factors that may go (or have gone) into
>that decision. The point in the abstract was intended to tell the reader
>that the authors were not suggesting that CGN was "good" or "needed".
>
>There are some important points that I think are important within the
>section (section 2), so perhaps if I/we can remove specific text that seems
>to given the impression that we are defending CGN, I can do so.
I'd like to understand what you think is important here. Much of the
text explaining why CGN is used basically amounts to justification for
it.
Is your concern that the sentence "IPv6 is considered the strategic
answer" in section 2 is not stressed enough?
Regards, Benoit
In contrast, the list of requirements you provide is fairly neutral
and seems to cover most of the reasons well enough for me at least.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
