Hello Chairs, all In essence, while at a very high level all solutions appear to solve a common problem, just like all ducks look the same, some solve extra problems that are of critical importance to some operators, this forms the basis for the different approaches, and what led to the MAP draft set, and in that set there is no way to "sqaure the circle" The "hybrid solution" also does not "square the circle", and what more raises several technical questions, besides lacking the trial implementation & experience factor that MAP's constituents have shown - it thus appears to be in a different, rather experimental, league .
Respectfully thus, the view presented under item 1) below and ultimately the questions appear set to cause further thrashing of arguments all over again. All this going a long way off from actually progressing the development of solutions that solve problems the WG cares about and under majority consensus if universal consensus is not possible. As a way forward I would suggest a much simpler approach that is more likely to result in some progress, with the following questions being asked: 1. Should MAP (all MAP drafts) be adopted as WG drafts all on Informational track? 2. Should 4rd-u as WG draft on the Experimental or Informational track, if shown to be in line with existing specs. Along with an acceptance of any/all of the above, there should be a charter clause indicating that one, or all of these drafts can be moved to a Standards track following WG consensus, without altering the status of the others, unless similarly consented. Regards, Wojciech. On 20 March 2012 00:38, Alain Durand <adur...@juniper.net> wrote: > Dear wg, > > After a number of discussions with my co-chair, our AD and various > authors, here is how we would like to move forward wrt 4rd. > > 1) There is an observation that all the solutions on the table E, T & U > actually solve the stateless problem we started with. > There are differences, but it is unclear if those differences are > really significant. E and T are the original Encapsulation and Translation > proposals, U is an hybrid unifying solution. > > 2) We have already agreed back in Beijing that we would publish all > necessary documents. The issue here is the 'label' or 'status' those > documents have at IETF. In particular, do we want to publish them as > Experimental, Informational or Standard Track. > > We are at the point now where we need to make progress. In Paris, we would > like to ask for presentations from the proponents of each candidate > solution (E, T & U). > Each presentation should cover an overview of the proposed solution, > explain how it compares to the others and make a case as why it should be > the one on the Standard Track. We will allocate 20 minutes for each > presentation. > > Then, we, chairs, would like to ask a series of questions to the working > group. In order to make this process transparent, here is the list of > questions we want to ask > and their sequence. > > Q1: Without pre-supposing which one will be selected, do you agree to > publish 1 of the 3 proposals on the Standard Track and publish the other(s) > as Informational if still asked to? > > If the answer is NO, then the process stops and we will publish everything > as Experimental and come back in 12-24 months to see what gets adopted by > the market. > If the answer is YES, we move to the next question. > > > Q2: Do you believe that the WG should publish U as the one Standards Track > document? > > If the answer is YES, the process stop, we put U on the Standard Track and > publish E & T as Informational. > If the answer is NO, we are left with E & T (U then might be abandoned or > published as Historical/Informational) > > > Q3: Which of E and T do you want to see moving on the standard track (you > can only express support for one)? > > If there is a clear outcome from this question, we would publish that > proposal on the Standard Track and the other one as Informational. > If there is no clear consensus on this question, we will publish both E & > T as Experimental. > > In the meantime, we would like to encourage discussion on the mailing list > to foster our common understanding of the various technologies and how they > relate to each other. > > Alain & Yong, wg co-chairs. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
