Remi, et al, > This kind of table you have below is IMHO the tool we need at this stage :-). > > It has however to be more detailed: so far, it covers 4rd-H (the > header-mapping variant of the last 4rd-U), but not 4rd-E (its encapsulation > variant). > A 4 columns table would be ideal. Also, It could have a sign identifying > points that are N in current drafts, but could easily become Y if the final > consensus is that they are worth the additional complexity. > I can work on it if you are interested.
the design team, chartered by the chairs, has delivered its work to the working group for consideration. the MAP design team did its pick of features that it found useful and valuable from the veritable smorgasbord of features that have been suggested. those choices have to a large extent been discussed on the list. we do not, in my view, have multiple competing solutions, we are rather discussing different "feature profiles". the MAP design team has proposed one "feature profile" for the working group. Remi has proposed another. since the design team has finished the work it set out to do, I'd rather see the feature selection discussion on a working group document. idea: would it be possible to pull out the "feature sections" of 4rd-U and publish that as a new draft. then with detailed descriptions of the features, the working group can decide on what should be added or replaced in the MAP documents? cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
