On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Maoke <[email protected]> wrote: > hi Behcet, > > 2012/4/10 Tina TSOU <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Apr 10, 2012, at 10:12 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Maoke, >> > >> > Thank you for your efforts in technical details of one specific >> > proposal on the table. >> > >> > However, I for one think that probably it is time to concentrate on >> > commonalities rather than the differences. As Alain indicated, these >> > proposals do have a lot of common points. >> > > > > that proposal is basically of a response to people's call for "describing > technical concerns in mind" about 4rd-U. commonality and difference is the > two sides of the same coin. if we don't understand what makes them exactly > different, we are also hard to understand how common they are. this document > is purposed in sharing such an understanding and therefore it focuses only > on the essential concerns -- the concerns regarding architecture and > protocol semantics. > >> >> > Why don't (whoever) write a draft putting together all the common >> > points concentrating on CE to BR and abstracting out BIH, XLAT, etc.? >> > Such a draft can be of great value at this point, I think. >> That's MAP-D document. >> > > > > yes. as Tina points out, MAP deployment draft that we are working on plays > the role of clarifying the common deployment considerations with MAP series. > thanks! >
I would prefer calling a document that unifies both 4rd-u and MAP's 4rd. This is what this whole Softwire work is aimed at, i.e. define 4rd protocol. Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
