On 15/02/2013 10:11, "Rémi Després" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 2013-02-15 10:03, Wojciech Dec (wdec) <[email protected]> : >... >> It is my opinion that we've discussed this 1:1 mode many many times >> before, and at each time concluded that a) it is a natural >>characteristic >> of MAP ii) it would actually require *more text* (and complexity) to >> remove it. > >Would you see anything needing to be reworded if section 7.4 and examples >4 an 5 are simply deleted (the only texts AFAIK that explicitly refer to >1:1 as being an objective)? Let's take a step back: Long long time ago, in an era of many ills with the softwire WG, a pseudo WG-draft was set-up whose primary reason for existence was the supposed lack of 1:1 mode in MAP... The text you reference was included to provide examples of how the 1:1 is realized. Removing such text will thus take us back to answering "how does MAP do 1:1?", not doing anyone a favor really (noting that existing implementations support the 1:1 mode, as a natural part of the implementation and that at least the developers involved I know didn't find the implementation to be an issue.) Of course we can always write N drafts, but that's not the point of why we're here (IMO). -Woj.. > >RD > > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
