Remi, >> (this reminds me of cockfighting; somewhat entertaining for the spectators >> (if that's your kind of thing), one is declared a winner, but both >> combatants die... > > You may fear that MAP T+E would be about to die (your judgement) but, in > particular in view of the quotation above, I think 4rd-U as in a good > position to remain alive. > > Your recent comment suggesting that hub&spoke and per-customer stateful > solutions might after all be sufficient seems to me a sheer lack of > confidence in the solution you propose. (It looks like you become tired to > work on the double-standard approach, knowing that arguments for it are too > weak for success.)
can we just cite irreconcilable differences and stop discussing this? > This doesn't justify, however, your trying to also kill the single standard > solution, the most credible A+P approach we have on the table. I believe that a consequence of us not being able to agree on a A+P solution will have the effect of killing A+P. the "problem" with MAP isn't that it has two modes of encapsulation. the problem with MAP is 4rd-U. the unification of churches rarely work. I would have been happy to concede and go with 4rd-U, but only if I thought it worked. and would have an easy way through standardization. unfortunately, the esoteric features with the V-octet and fragment header will make that not so. this is my last mail to you on this subject. Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
