dear Alain, thanks a lot for the message. i apologize for the language disparaging that i used in the above discussion. please Sheng and Bing accept my apology.
what i am meaning is unchanged: i'm willing to contribute testing scenarios if people think they are useful for problem understanding and/or protocol improvement. sincerely, maoke 2012/4/9 Alain Durand <[email protected]> > Makoe, > > The usage of disparaging language does not benefit the clarity of the > discussion. > I understand that english may or may not be your primary language, nor is > it for the majority of the wg members. > > I encourage everybody to remain civil in this discourse. > > As about implementation, they are a required element in the IETF standard > process when we move from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. > I know that the routing area has experimented with requiring > implementation for Proposed Standard, but I'm not aware of any such > requirement > in the Internet Area. > > Alain. > > > On Apr 9, 2012, at 5:38 AM, Maoke wrote: > > what if, giving time, people can be mature enough to identify 4rd-U is > really a flawed donkorse? ;-) if the 4rd-u designers are so confident, why > not do the real coding work first and then propose it as a replacement of > MAP suite? i don't see any unfairness here. - maoke > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
