Hi Ted,
my comment refers specifically to the characterization of MAP in the
introduction of the lw46 draft. I keep on restating this, because this
characterization of MAP is not correct - the current text states ..If this
type of meshed interconnectivity is required,
On 3 March 2014 17:57, Lee, Yiu yiu_...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
How MAP-E aggregates CPE for N CEs in hub-and-spoke? When implementing MAP
in hub-and-spoke, cpe/ce v4 information is in the br. Each ce will have an
entry in the br. This is the same number of states lw4o6 will maintain. Am
I
If, as you say, Ian is happy to make the change that you've proposed, then I
have no problem with that. However, let's not needlessly delay both of these
drafts arguing about marketing boilerplate. The text as written is not a
sufficiently glowing recommendation of MAP, but it doesn't need
If, as you say, Ian is happy to make the change that you've proposed, then I
have no problem with that. However, let's not needlessly delay both of
these drafts arguing about marketing boilerplate. The text as written is
not a sufficiently glowing recommendation of MAP, but it doesn't
This could certainly save a spending the rest of the week micro-editing
wording, so I’d be happy with it.
An extremely tentative further suggestion:
Should there be a draft which discusses the available softwire solutions more
throughly (we would tackle this only after we’ve got the WGCLs
Sorry, but I'll insist for a number of reasons:
1. It is technically valid
2. The solutions are clearly closely related. Not stating that in any way
would be ridiculous.
3. It presents (introduces) the context of the draft, and as I said MAP-E
should do likewise. It is not a detailed pro/con.
4.
On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote:
I have had success in the past by removing contentious text. I think that
could work here, just remove this paragraph:
WFM, but the authors have to agree. :)
___
Softwires mailing
On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Ian Farrer ianfar...@gmx.com wrote:
Should there be a draft which discusses the available softwire solutions more
throughly (we would tackle this only after we’ve got the WGCLs completed, so
there’s something to actually compare)?
A basket of vipers, I’m sure,
On Mar 4, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, but I'll insist for a number of reasons:
Woj, can we please not speak in terms of insisting? You are a working group
participant. If you have a technical issue _which would prevent the standard
from functioning_
I was speaking as a WG participant, and I was referring to my proposal made
in that capacity. Furthermore, there is nothing factually wrong with what I
said, nor you appear to question that. The text that you oddly claim will
take years to resolve, took 5 mins to agree with Ian (yesterday).
Yes, for the ICMP handling part, this works for me.
Cheers
On 3 March 2014 20:40, Ian Farrer ianfar...@gmx.com wrote:
Hi Senthil,
Good point. So, that would give us:
For TCP and UDP traffic the NAPT44 implemented in the lwB4 SHOULD conform
with the behaviour and best current practices
On Mar 4, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com wrote:
I was speaking as a WG participant, and I was referring to my proposal made
in that capacity. Furthermore, there is nothing factually wrong with what I
said, nor you appear to question that. The text that you oddly claim
Hi Ian,
On 03/04/2014 04:54 AM, Ian Farrer wrote:
This could certainly save a spending the rest of the week micro-editing
wording, so I’d be happy with it.
An extremely tentative further suggestion:
Should there be a draft which discusses the available softwire solutions more
throughly (we
This could certainly save a spending the rest of the week micro-editing
wording, so I’d be happy with it.
An extremely tentative further suggestion:
Should there be a draft which discusses the available softwire solutions
more throughly (we would tackle this only after we’ve got the
OK, it was merely a suggestion….
I’m mildly relieved I don’t have to write it.
Ian
On 4 Mar 2014, at 14:27, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote:
This could certainly save a spending the rest of the week micro-editing
wording, so I’d be happy with it.
An extremely tentative further
On 04/03/2014 9:47 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Ian,
On 03/04/2014 04:54 AM, Ian Farrer wrote:
This could certainly save a spending the rest of the week
micro-editing wording, so I’d be happy with it.
An extremely tentative further suggestion:
Should there be a draft which discusses the
16 matches
Mail list logo
