OK, it was merely a suggestion…. I’m mildly relieved I don’t have to write it.
Ian On 4 Mar 2014, at 14:27, Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org> wrote: >>> This could certainly save a spending the rest of the week micro-editing >>> wording, so I’d be happy with it. >>> >>> An extremely tentative further suggestion: >>> >>> Should there be a draft which discusses the available softwire solutions >>> more throughly (we would tackle this only after we’ve got the WGCLs >>> completed, so there’s something to actually compare)? >>> >>> A basket of vipers, I’m sure, but it wold give somewhere for a much more >>> complete analysis of the pros and cons rather than a line and a half of >>> analysis in the technology specific drafts. >> >> I think could be an useful effort but I do think that writing an objective >> document is going to be extremely hard. I think we will have problems even >> agreeing on the axes of comparison, let alone the evaluation of the >> solutions along these axes. > > I agree with Suresh. the outcome of the working group is to publish 5 largely > equal mechanisms. then it is up to the market to decide which mechanism will > be successful. I don't really see what more the IETF can do to contribute to > that process. > > cheers, > Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
