Re: [Softwires] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-chen-softwire-4rd-u-comment-00.txt

[Maoke <[e-mail]>]

dear Remi,

2012/4/11 Rémi Després <[e-mail]>

>
>
> technical discussion results in problem understanding instead of certainly
> a support for or an objection to a work politically. so i don't understand
> what is the so-called "deliberate controversy" here.
>
>
> I supposed it was evident to you too that CNP cannot protect protocol
> and/or packet length.
> Then, asking how it would do that sounded to me as a non technical
> question.
> Sorry if this wasn't the case.
>

sorry but my way of asking was possibly confusing. i really thought CNP
itself couldn't do that but i worried if i missed some thing or some
straightforward possibility of easy refinement, and therefore i asked you
for confirmation.


>
> i suppose my draft is written very neutral.
>
>
> Full of good level technical analysis, I am pleased to acknowledge.
> Although I believe anyone asked to guess whether you are in favor of 4rd
> or MAP would easily find the answer, I can also acknowledge that the draft
> is neutral to a good enough extent.
>
>
this draft is written quite earlier but i postpone its submission, trying
to avoid an impression that i attempt to bias people's selection, until the
vote was close to the end while you and others also called for technical
details about the semantics concerns in my mind. i would like to say, in
the program of the wg, i am in favor of MAP, but this favor is essentially
for now, supporting MAP as wg doc in standard track. in the term of problem
understanding, i am in favor of any serious explorations. to this extent,
facing the future, i think a neutral but pure technical commentary is
needed.

we haven't seen the wg decision. however, no matter the decision is, there
is a possibility that the work or similar exploration of 4rd-u would
continue. if the 4rd-u becomes historical, we must learn something from the
history and clearly understand why it is considered not working well
enough; if 4rd-u becomes experimental, we are obliged to tell the community
that there are something changed but we still, moderately, recommend it in
the case that these changes do not severely impact the practice. were there
no MAP, i would do the same.

that's the purpose.

thanks for understanding,
maoke