Ole,
On 5/3/2012 Thursday 4:38 PM, Ole Trøan wrote:
Jacni,
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.
would it alleviate your concerns if the documents had MUSTs for both? i.e.
increasing the probability that an implementation supported both, and making
this purely into an operational choice?
I'd rather prefer you pick one only.
wouldn't we all. I think you're flogging a dead horse. let us accept that the
requirements for translation and the requirements for encapsulation are
mutually exclusive.
We put the requirements on the table and some discussions, but sorry, I
can't remember what exactly the consensus/conclusion is, and I'm
confused about where we are.
I see, maybe I'm wrong, the technical requirements are drawn more from
the two incompatible solutions after, but not from the
conversion/analysis of the statements in "motivation", then we got the
mutually exclusive ones you mentioned above. How can we figure out the
way to move forward? Just by some MUSTs/MAYs ...
Anyway, if generally we have a single target or design goal, IMHO, it's
really a bad idea to keep parallel two, no matter we call them
requirements/solutions, whatever.
Cheers,
Jacni
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
