Hi Suresh, your description, which I don¹t dispute, does not convey the importance of Q5, which ultimately was the question the chairs verified via the call on the WG mailer. I.e. The choices for progressing the MAP-T draft, post split from MAP-E, were: - ³Experimental from the WG² - ³Don¹t work on them in the WG²
Given that there were numerous parties that wanted it to remain a WG document, the net effect of the coin-toss was thus, indeed to split from MAP-E standards track, and to put MAP-T on the ³experimental track². Historical clarifications aside thought, and perhaps more relevantly, the MAP-T authors do not think that the draft¹s designation as ³Experimental² is technically objectively justified. Regards, Wojciech. On 14/10/2014 17:28, "Suresh Krishnan" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Dan, > >On 10/13/2014 10:46 AM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote: >> Hello Dan, >> >> Thank you for you comments. I¹m reading an updated draft, however there >> is one point that I am unable to address fully: >> >> ³2."2.The status of this document is Experimental. It is not clear why. >> There are no experimental documents in the softwire WG charter, and the >> status of the Œsister¹ document draft-ietf-softwire-map is Standards >> Track. Why the difference?² >> >> Together with the other authors, we fully agree that the draft does not >> fit the ³experimental² status, as in it actually uses standards track >> technology (NAT64) as well as the sister (standard track) MAP. There >> also are a number of reports about MAP-T testing >> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cordeiro-experience-mapt-01 ), and a >> handful of commercial implementations. As Xing commented earlier on, the >> decision on the track was made by the WG by means of a coin toss, which >> in our opinion wasn¹t based on technical merits. > >Just so that nobody misunderstands what happened with the coin toss, I >will explain what the coin toss was about. First off, I want to state >that MAP-T's experimental status **WAS NOT** determined by a coin toss. > >The coin toss only determined whether MAP-E and MAP-T were to be treated >as one solution or two. The WG was split on this question and I opted to >ask the ADs for a coin toss to resolve this deadlock. Period. The coin >toss was not used for anything else. > >The questions I used can be found in the proceedings at > >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf > >MAP-E was confirmed as the Standards track solution starting with this >thread that I initiated. > >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04719.html > >The WG opted to publish MAP-T as an experimental document as a result of >*another* consensus call. Thread at > >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04817.html > >Hope this clarifies things a bit. > >Thanks >Suresh > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
