On Mar 3, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> wrote: > From a previous mail (that you perhaps missed):
I didn't miss it. The distinction you are making is finally making sense to me after many repetitions. Sorry for being dense. I think what you are trying to avoid is the situation where a reader of this specification decides to implement it rather than a hub-and-spoke-only subset of MAP, even though MAP provides hub-and-spoke as well as the mesh mode. But in practice, someone who does not want to implement full MAP probably _is_ going to prefer lw4over6. Someone who reads both specs, wants to implement MAP anyway, and is seeing no market pressure to implement lw4over6 isn't going to decide to implement lw4over6 as well because of this text. So I think the text actually says the right thing as currently written, and is likely to be more confusing to the intended reader with your proposed change. That's my opinion as a participant, not as AD—if the working group disagrees with me, I'm totally okay with that. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
