> If, as you say, Ian is happy to make the change that you've proposed, then I > have no problem with that. However, let's not needlessly delay both of > these drafts arguing about marketing boilerplate. The text as written is > not a sufficiently glowing recommendation of MAP, but it doesn't need to be, > for two reasons. First, this is not a draft about MAP. Secondly, > everybody already knows what they intend to implement anyway, so getting this > text exactly perfect will make not one iota of difference in regards to who > implements what.
I have had success in the past by removing contentious text. I think that could work here, just remove this paragraph: "It does not offer direct, meshed IPv4 connectivity between subscribers without packets traversing the AFTR. If this type of meshed interconnectivity is required, [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] provides a suitable solution." or alternatively, the last sentence. cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
