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

[Maoke <[e-mail]>]

2012/4/12 Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Maoke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > hi Behcet,
> >
> > 2012/4/10 Tina TSOU <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Apr 10, 2012, at 10:12 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[e-mail]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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.
> > thanks!
> >
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet
>