On 25 Feb 2014, at 23:55 , Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 25, 2014, at 6:11 PM, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think the point he was trying to make was that it isn't optimal to have >> two standards documents, specifying mechanisms where one is almost >> completely encompassed by the other. I say almost, because there might be >> some divergence in how tunnel endpoint addresses are used, and how >> fragmentation and ICMP is dealt with. > > If this is indeed his point, I'm sure we're all sympathetic (I know I am) but > it's not actionable, so we should move on.
au contrarie, it is clearly actionable, but I think the working group has done the best it can, so if there are actions, those should be elsewhere. cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
