dear Remi,
2012/4/2 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Hi, Congxiao,
During the Softwire meeting, you came to the mike to assert that the 4rd-U
specification was known to have flaws.
Yet, you do know that the 4rd-U specification has been reviewed by
competent contributors of widely
On 4/4/12 3:22 AM, Tom Taylor wrote:
I have been advised privately by a couple of people that I erred in my
description of relative support for MAP vs. 4rd-U at the meeting.
Support for MAP was predominant, but not to the point of rough consensus.
I was startled at the meeting by how much
hi Tom,
a neutral point: as a person who were not in the venue (but only through
listening and jabber), i also heard it seemed some, never joining either
mail list or venue discussion, held up their hands. i doubt they care the
techniques itself.
it is a question mark if the comparable number
2012/4/4 Jan Zorz @ go6.si j...@go6.si
On 4/4/12 3:22 AM, Tom Taylor wrote:
I have been advised privately by a couple of people that I erred in my
description of relative support for MAP vs. 4rd-U at the meeting.
Support for MAP was predominant, but not to the point of rough consensus.
I
2012/4/3, Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com:
On 2 April 2012 19:10, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Woj Well, in terms of facts we have
1. 4rd-U does not supporting single translation mode,
Not claimed to.
It's good to get clarity now that previous 4rd-U claims of
Congxiao,
None of what follows leaves AFAIK what would be a flaw preventing operational
deployments to be successful.
Yet, thank you for this clarification of your understanding.
Unless you wish to pursue, this is enough for me.
Le 2012-04-04 à 04:35, Congxiao Bao a écrit :
Hi Remi,
Le 2012-04-04 à 03:22, Tom Taylor a écrit :
I have been advised privately by a couple of people that I erred in my
description of relative support for MAP vs. 4rd-U at the meeting. Support for
MAP was predominant, but not to the point of rough consensus.
Right.
That's a fact.
I was
Le 2012-04-04 à 08:04, Maoke a écrit :
dear Remi,
2012/4/2 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Hi, Congxiao,
During the Softwire meeting, you came to the mike to assert that the 4rd-U
specification was known to have flaws.
Yet, you do know that the 4rd-U specification has been
Le 2012-04-04 à 08:04, Maoke a écrit :
dear Remi,
2012/4/2 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Hi, Congxiao,
During the Softwire meeting, you came to the mike to assert that the 4rd-U
specification was known to have flaws.
Yet, you do know that the 4rd-U specification has been
2012/4/4 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-04-04 à 08:04, Maoke a écrit :
dear Remi,
2012/4/2 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Hi, Congxiao,
During the Softwire meeting, you came to the mike to assert that the
4rd-U specification was known to have flaws.
Yet, you do
2012-04-04 12:39, Maoke :
...
Even after the last mail exchanges, and although some others think
differently, I honestly think that none of the alleged 4rd-u flaws is
effective in real world, and that any of these would prevent 4rd-U
deployments to be useful and flawless.
not
Hi,
the description of the mailing list says: serving access to multi-interface
terminals. Looks like MIF to me.
- how is this different from MIF?
- why did the MIF ML was not part of the multicast?
Marc.
Le 2012-04-04 à 11:36, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
A new list has been created for
2012-04-03 18:32, Marc Blanchet :
I don't see a way out of this thread.
my suggestion:
- published both as experimental
- let the market decide
- come back later to move one or the other standard track.
+1
RD
Above all, I think having a stable specification (i.e. RFC) that
Dear Softwire wg members:
At the Paris IETF Softwire meeting, we had presentations on MAP (taken as a
whole) and
4rd-U. We got very strong feedback that we needed to select one
solution to cover that full stateless case, not two, and that we should make
this
decision relatively quickly.
Here's the situation. There was no clear consensus in the WG meeting in Paris.
But the IETF conducts its business on the mailing list, so - as we always do -
the chairs asked for feedback on the two questions asked in Paris. We'll use
the responses to assess if there is consensus for the
15 matches
Mail list logo
