WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Maoke <fibrib@...> wrote:
> hi Behcet,
> 2012/4/10 Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@...>
>> Sent from my iPad
>> On Apr 10, 2012, at 10:12 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <sarikaya2012@...>
>> > Hi Maoke,
>> > Thank you for your efforts in technical details of one specific
>> > proposal on the table.
>> > However, I for one think that probably it is time to concentrate on
>> > commonalities rather than the differences. As Alain indicated, these
>> > proposals do have a lot of common points.
> that proposal is basically of a response to people's call for "describing
> technical concerns in mind" about 4rd-U. commonality and difference is the
> two sides of the same coin. if we don't understand what makes them exactly
> different, we are also hard to understand how common they are. this document
> is purposed in sharing such an understanding and therefore it focuses only
> on the essential concerns -- the concerns regarding architecture and
> protocol semantics.
>> > Why don't (whoever) write a draft putting together all the common
>> > points concentrating on CE to BR and abstracting out BIH, XLAT, etc.?
>> > Such a draft can be of great value at this point, I think.
>> That's MAP-D document.
> yes. as Tina points out, MAP deployment draft that we are working on plays
> the role of clarifying the common deployment considerations with MAP series.
I would prefer calling a document that unifies both 4rd-u and MAP's 4rd.
unfortunately, we were on that track, as i member. - maoke
This is what this whole Softwire work is aimed at, i.e. define 4rd protocol.