2012-04-02 11:45, Maoke: ... > i am still in review on the version -06, but i have found something not > qualified (inconsistent semantics).
Asserting there are flaws implies ability to describe them. What you have already "found" will be looked at fairly when described. (Just saying "inconsistent semantics" is unsuffcient). > on the other hand, this message is more about progress rather than the > technical details. > if we have the BoF or new working group for the unified header mapping, i'd > love to keep discussion there, with contributing my list of > semantics/architecture/technical-detail questions that i found during the > review. If Satoru-san and yourself want to set up a BOF on this, that remains up to you. AFAIK, it won't prevent those who want to test 4rd-U-06 to do it. > Sorry if I am not as shrewd as I should be in your opinion. > > >> and also my real-time comments on 4rd-u presentation in the jabber room as a >> brief summary focusing on major points. - maoke > > Do you know where I could get access to these comments? > > i guess we have the jabber log. Not seen where. And there isn't AFAIK an audio record either. > but it is less informative. Less informative than what? > if the unified header mapping wg or BoF is started, i will contribute a > comprehensive, and well-studied list of questions. A WG now without a previous BOF is of course completely unrealistic. If this is to say that until a BOF is started, you will keep your objection(s) unknown, I continue to take it as a lack of identified objections. Fair enough? Cheers, RD > > best, > maoke >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
