Le 2013-02-15 à 11:16, Wojciech Dec (wdec) <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > 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). It is thus clear that, if section 7.4 and examples 4 and 5 are deleted from the MAP draft, *no more text* is NEEDED in the draft itself. Applicability of MAP and of other solutions to 1:1 can be clarified in some other document(s) when consensus is reached. Thanks, RD > > -Woj.. > >> >> RD >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
