Sorry, I forgot to fill the title in the last mail, just forward it again. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Liubing (Leo) Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 8:01 PM To: Maoke Cc: [email protected] Subject: [Softwires] (no subject)
2012/4/9 Liubing (Leo) <[email protected]> >>>fine. we'd love to see it out with good amount of data and good amount of >>>feedback from testing operators. >>>if you invite me to test, i'd love to provide challenging scenarios. ;-) >>>but it doesn't mean we should postpone current process of standardization of >>>MAP, because the result of 4rd-u is still unsure. - maoke >>I'd love to see operators find proper mechanisms respectively according to >>their own situations, rather than some mechanisms *out*. >joke. operators haven't know what the 4rd-u is. operators never make selection >on things not belonging to its knowledge. come on, believe me, as an engineer >in an operator company, the real operators are more conservative than me. ;-) [Bing] Are you assuming the voters voted for MAP without knowing what the 4rd-u is? I do believe 4rd-u is not as popular as MAP, but please don't make the arbitrary assumption, especially from you who knows 4rd-u clearly. Just because the real operators are more conservative, so that maybe they don't want to rush to a standard track. >>The transition mechanisms are developed for the operators, but in my >>observation, the MAP hasn't proved sufficiently for operators' >> long-term selection. So why we have to rush to a *stand track*? >it is only your observation and it is a different question. you may argue that >the MAP is not mature enough for the wg acceptance but the > wg is doing a consensus decision. [Bing]Maybe MAP is ready for a RFC, but it doesn't mean it is ready for long-term operators' selection. What I argued is that , let's do not hurry to have only one standard track right now as we want to make the choice instead of the operators. >on the other hand, as i pointed out, even there is no MAP at all, i don't >think 4rd-u now is at the time of talking about wg acceptance. >may i suggest, as you have promised that you will code the stuff, to start the >coding work as soon as possible. > i don't like to make out a testing list but finally see nothing to test. > thanks! [Bing] You may mixed me with Sheng. Sorry for interrupting into your thread without informing that. But regardless of 4rd-u coding&testing, MAP itself also needs more sufficient test and improvement. - maoke _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
