Yes. See Mail of July 8. So far your objection is the only one, although I don't quite see in it any technically grounded objection. A fair bit of discussions between authors (MAP and lw46), softwire & dhc chairs, and WG participants have taken place, and naturally will also be held in Berlin.
Re-spinning draft versions is easy. On 15 July 2013 17:29, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> wrote: > Since this is a WG draft, did the authors ask the WG to update this? When > the WG accepted this draft, it was only for MAP. But seems the scope has > been changed. This should start as an Individual draft. I will recommend to > revert back to the last version and present this in Berlin to replace the > MAP draft if the WG agrees with it. > > > From: Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:43 AM > To: Qi Sun <[email protected]> > Cc: Softwires-wg <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Changes to DHCP MAP Option draft > > > Yes, there was a long thread started by Tomek. Given that the option is > applicable beyond MAP a *suggestion* was to rename it. I'm personally ok > either way. The "Softwire46" option is the currently proposed name. > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
