Le 2013-02-15 à 14:40, "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > 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. "Removing MAP1:1 section" isn't "removing MAP1:1" > 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. Different subject. > >> (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. Please understand that "Removing MAP1:1 section" isn't against this (as I suppose Med and Suresh can confirm too). RD > > -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
