> -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 10:47 PM > To: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert > Cc: Fred Baker (fred); Wassim Haddad; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-03 > > > > On 5/26/2016 1:55 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > >> This document represents a step backwards, is useful only in more > >> limited > >> > environments, etc. > > Thanks for confirming that this encapsulation is useful in limited > > environment > (i.e., Softwires networks). > I never said what environment it was useful for, but clearly Softwires doesn't > *need* this solution (they already have two that work).
Then what's the limited environment in your mind? > In another post: > >> However, you ignored the other issues that come up when this doc is > >> considered for WG adoption - do we need it? > > Not ignored. I just need to confirm whether it's worthwhile to be fixed in > practice (i.e., in the real target network environment) before fixing them. > There's no point in fixing a flat on a car with a broken engine. Please don't waste your time on giving meaningless examples while escaping from technical questions on your arguments. Xiaohu > There's also no point in continuing to discuss why. > > Joe > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
