2012/4/2 Rémi Després <[email protected]> > > 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). >
because i don't think we didn't cover that topic before. > > > 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. > > i don't believe 4rd-u but we respect your belief and therefore we suggest you do. but what we can make is only suggestion. surely it is welcome if anyone would like to test 4rd-u. but the test is not the scope of softwire, and AFAIK, the test of 4rd-u won't prevent those who want to deploy MAP in real. regards, maoke
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
