Re: [Softwires] Publish MAP and 4rd-U on experimental track

Hi, Brian, First, welcome as new Internet-area AD. Also, thanks for the reference and the quote. Note however that, in this particular instance, this quote will not be of any help because it concerns issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list. On the contrary, RFC 2418 says:

Re: [Softwires] Mailing list question to gauge consensus on 4rd-U vs MAP

= Question 1: Do you agree that the wg should put EITHER 4rd-U OR MAP (as a whole) on the standard track, the other being published as experimental or informational. Answering YES to this question means you agree we cannot

Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rd… 4rd-U as transparent as MAP-E

+1 I've read the endless discussion, and found that is seems the MAP also has not fully convinced the ISP operation guys. Since there's explicit controversy, why not just publish them both as experimental. why we must chose one as a standard track? Being a standard track can eliminate

Re: [Softwires] Mailing list question to gauge consensus on 4rd-U vs MAP

= Question 1: Do you agree that the wg should put EITHER 4rd-U OR MAP (as a whole) on the standard track, the other being published as experimental or informational. Answering YES to this question means you agree we cannot

Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ 4rd-U as transparent as MAP-E

I also followed the discussion. I appreciate both teams bought up the technical details for both designs. To be honest, I fail to see which one is better than other (yet). I like the fact that 4rd-u can do what MAP-T does w/o introducing any encap overhead. But I understand the concerns others

Re: [Softwires] Publish MAP and 4rd-U on experimental track

On 4/6/12 3:42 AM, Rémi Després wrote: Hi, Brian, First, welcome as new Internet-area AD. Also, thanks for the reference and the quote. Thanks. Note however that, in this particular instance, this quote will not be of any help because it concerns issues which have not been discussed on

Re: [Softwires] Publish MAP and 4rd-U on experimental track

Le 2012-04-06 à 16:35, Brian Haberman a écrit : On 4/6/12 3:42 AM, Rémi Després wrote: Hi, Brian, First, welcome as new Internet-area AD. Also, thanks for the reference and the quote. Thanks. Note however that, in this particular instance, this quote will not be of any help

Re: [Softwires] Publish MAP and 4rd-U on experimental track

On Apr 6, 2012, at 11:04 AM 4/6/12, Rémi Després wrote: Le 2012-04-06 à 16:35, Brian Haberman a écrit : On 4/6/12 3:42 AM, Rémi Després wrote: Hi, Brian, First, welcome as new Internet-area AD. Also, thanks for the reference and the quote. Thanks. Note however that, in this

[Softwires] Remi Despres and mailing list

I just followed up on my e-mail to the WG mailing list as a whole with private e-mail to Remi to reassure him that Alain and Yong are conducting a good process. I also told him that it is inappropriate to imply that the chairs are trying to change WG decisions, delay publication, or otherwise

Re: [Softwires] Publish MAP and 4rd-U on experimental track

Le 2012-04-06 à 17:36, Ralph Droms a écrit : On Apr 6, 2012, at 11:04 AM 4/6/12, Rémi Després wrote: Le 2012-04-06 à 16:35, Brian Haberman a écrit : On 4/6/12 3:42 AM, Rémi Després wrote: Hi, Brian, First, welcome as new Internet-area AD. Also, thanks for the reference and the

Re: [Softwires] Remi Despres and mailing list

I just mistakenly sent e-mail intended for the softwire WG chairs. However, the content turns out to be appropriate for the mailing list as a whole: * the chairs are running a good process * there will be differing opinions about technical issues * implying any motives or agendas behind the