2012-05-04 18:16, Leaf yeh: > Remi - Would you agree, though, that if a solution is confirmed to cover > design goals of both Encapsulation and Translation, it would better meet the > WG objective objective to have a single standard? (Operators would be > relieved from having to make a choice.) > > That sounds great if the solution (eg. 4rd-U) is confirmedly feasible
Yes, feasibility is clearly a decisive criterion. (Not forgetting that feasibility of MAP-T+E, with all what there is in the specification without having be tested before, has also to be confirmed.) > and extensively accepted by the group. Right? That's the purpose of this question: will standard unicity be confirmed by the WG an important criterion? If you agree, we can resume this discussion when all specifications are available. Kind regards, RD > > > Best Regards, > Leaf > > > From: Rémi Després [[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 20:55 > To: Leaf yeh > Cc: Jacni Qin; Ole Trøan; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and > official way forward > > > Le 2012-05-04 à 12:08, Leaf yeh a écrit : > >> Jacni - Anyway, if generally we have a single target or design goal,… >> >> There are many design goals here. What Ole said in this email is the >> solution of Encapsulation & Translation will meet the different ones, which >> sounds mutually exclusive. Will you go for the further clarification or >> discussion on it here? >> >> I would be open to accept these 2 solutions, which share part of the same >> address format. And let the operator get the right to pick one he believe it >> is feasible & suitable, or even not pick any of these solution. > > Would you agree, though, that if a solution is confirmed to cover design > goals of both Encapsulation and Translation, it would better meet the WG > objective objective to have a single standard? > (Operators would be relieved from having to make a choice.) > > Regards, > RD > > > >> Best Regards, >> Leaf >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Jacni Qin >> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 10:03 AM >> To: Ole Trøan >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and >> official way forward >> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
