Remi, The question Ole posed still stands: - what does "remove MAP 1:1 mode mean"?
As evidenced by some of the emails (evidence being phrases like [sic] "Removing MAP 1:1 mode helps MAP be cleaner as a stateless solution for operators.", etc) on this thread, some folks appear to mean that MAP is *technically* specified as being prevented from realizing the 1:1 mode. This would require extra text and is radically different to moving a description of how MAP is used in 1:1 mode (to some informative draft). Rgds, Woj.. On 15/02/2013 12:06, "Rémi Després" <[email protected]> wrote: > >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
