2012/4/12 Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> > 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. >
unfortunately, we were on that track, as i member. - maoke > > 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
