On 3/20/12 12:38 AM, Alain Durand wrote:
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.
Hi,
I'm not really happy with this decision.
RFC 6346 Stateless A+P (a.k.a. 4rd/MAP) world is polarized in
encapsulation and translation part. MAP-U is brave attempt to unify both
worlds, but I;m not sure all the best parts from both world ended up in
-U proposal and that result is what I would like to see in reality.
Coming from operational ISP world, where this stuff will actually be
implemented in reality, I would suggest to publish -E and -T as
documents in standards track - and -U as experimental or informational.
What I would like to see as network architect is that vendors deploys -E
and -T in the same product named 4RD and operator can choose operating
mode when implementing the solution - deciding between encapsulation or
translation at will.
This way this working group work and effort would become useful for
operations.
Cheers and see you in few days,
Jan Zorz
Go6 Institute Slovenia
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
