On 15/02/2013 14:30, "Rémi Després" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >2013-02-15 12:16, "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email protected]> : > >> Remi, >> >> The question Ole posed still stands: >> - what does "remove MAP 1:1 mode mean"? > >This question was in Ole's answer to Med saying he is "in favour of >removing MAP1:1 section" (ref. >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg05182). > >But Med's request was already perfectly clear. Likely a truism but, if it was perfectly clear, then Ole wouldn't have asked the question. The e-mails that ensued (eg from Qi) make it clear that at least for some the removal request is a technical one not an editorial. >(I just noted that, for consistency, removal of examples 4 and 5 of >Appendix A goes with that of section 7.4.) > >Since consensus to have this section never exited, the editor should >remove it *before WGLC*. >(Editors must AFAIK remain neutral.) We've previously established consensus that MAP supports 1:1 mode (it likely happened at the meeting after you bid farewell to the group). Suresh can confirm. -Woj.. > >Regards, >RD > > >> On 15/02/2013 12:06, "Rémi Després" <[email protected]> wrote: >... >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
