Hi Remi, On 07/10/2012 08:28 AM, Rémi Després wrote: > > 2012-07-10 13:03, Maoke : > >> hi Remi, >> >> 2012/7/10 Rémi Després <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> Hi, Suresh, >> >> This draft contains valuable advices which can apply to 4rd as >> well as to MAP-T+E, but is exclusively MAP oriented. >> >> >> surely it is a MAP-oriented stuff as only the MAP-T+E are considered >> right now as the deployment paradigm in the draft. therefore i don't >> think it should wait 4rd being chosen for standardization. >> >> on the other hand, were 4rd rather than MAP chosen for standardization >> in the future, this deployment draft might be deprecated or its >> contents might be re-used and revised for 4rd deployment. > > Well, if this understanding is shared by the chairs, please consider > that my objection to have this draft as WG document now is without object. > A confirmation of this understanding will however be appreciated if it > is the right one.
Yes. Once the document comes under wg change control, it is the consensus of the wg that will drive it further. If there is wg consensus to include 4rd related text in this document either in addition to or in lieu of the MAP related text, that is what will happen. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
