Ole, >From my perspective, the argument is not whether two protocols are identical or not. I found MAP-E 1:1 is a stateful solution. I found it odd to make it part of MAP-E which was originally decided a stateless solution.
Regards, Yiu On 11/11/12 8:11 AM, "Ole Trøan" <[email protected]> wrote: >Qiong, > >> Now that you need to optimize the implementation for different >>requirements, why not optimize it from protocol level ? So that every >>vendor would know how to implement for different requirements, rather >>than let operators pushing vendors one by one and tell them how to do. > >what is the difference in protocol? >are the bits on the wire between these two proposals different? > >cheers, >Ole >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
