On Nov 15, 2014, at 10:24 AM, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: > This seems to suggest that someone viewed this issue had been "a factor in > the coin toss". > No one did AFAIK, and certainly not me. > But this isn’t the point.
If it wasn't a factor in the coin toss, it doesn't have anything to do with the working group's decision to choose Experimental vs. Proposed status. > Even in its experimental status, I do think MAP-T's specification should have > included a warning that it is incompatible with Path MTU Discovery of > RFC4821, and that MAP-E should be used if such compatibility is desired. I would not object to such a statement if the authors and the working group agree to add it, but that's not the question we're asking at the moment. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
