Clearly the last sentence below should have ended in *unjustified*. Sorry for the typo. Last post from me on this topic, as I'll leave this to the IESG.
On 14/10/2014 17:41, "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email protected]> 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. > >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
