My concern is MAP isn't a single solution. Operators still need to make a choice between E and T because they are not compatible.
From: Jacni Qin <ja...@jacni.com> Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 9:03 PM To: "Yiu L. LEE" <yiu_...@cable.comcast.com> Cc: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <j...@go6.si>, "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward Re-, On 4/30/2012 Monday 4:03 AM, Lee, Yiu wrote: > Well, even the WG decided to go with MAP, we would still need to coin toss > between MAP-T and MAP-E, wouldn't we? May I share your concern. Cheers, Jacni > On 4/26/12 10:50 AM, "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <j...@go6.si> <mailto:j...@go6.si> > wrote: > >> On 4/26/12 11:50 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: >>> Perhaps we would have been better off with the coin toss. >> +1 >> >> bingo. >> >> Cheers, Jan >> >> P.S: I'll not waste more bits on this topic as it's apparently a waste >> of bandwidth :) >> >> P.P.S: Should we deprecate RFC6346? >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
