Hi Woj,
On 10/14/2014 11:41 AM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:
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.
Noted. Unfortunately, the Gen-ART list is not the right forum for this
discussion. If you feel strongly about this, we can discuss alternatives
on the softwire working group mailing list.
Thanks
Suresh
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
