hi all, i listented to the softwire wg live on March 30 online and recorded my comments in the jabber room. as the person who was mentioned by the presenter not less than twice, i have to point out that it is unfair that the presenter mentioned me with only acknowledgment to my effort but my point of views. my summerized comment on 4rd-u is: it is flawed in both architecture and technical aspects, and now still uncertain in several details.
it would become as a ridiculous and weird record in the ietf history, had the wg made a decision of putting two as experimental, one is well-understood, well-coded and well-practised while the other is misleading the understanding on the Internet architecture, not yet coded, not yet tested by any operators. our company, as an ISP and as a provider doing also application services, including those over mobile platforms, is waiting for the MAP standard desirably. we have no interest in introducing the 4rd-u elements into our platforms. personally i won't code a stuff with obvious architectural flaws but, if i were believing in the 4rd-u, i would do the code and operational test with serious self-checking as MAP-T and MAP-E teams already have done, before talking on any doc-track issue with the community. this is the way of being responsible. thanks, maoke
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
