Re-,
On 5/3/2012 Thursday 10:18 AM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
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.
Fully agree, and IMHO, there have been lots of compromise in the design
of MAP algorithm to accommodate both E and T.
Cheers,
Jacni
From: Jacni Qin <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 9:03 PM
To: "Yiu L. LEE" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
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"<[email protected]> 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
[email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
