I am disappointed with this approach. Despite the support, the WG adoption of MAP documents has been delayed for a "label" reason. I find it unfair since the label can be changed any time until the IESG review. How can it be a hold-up?
One would have to wonder the intent of forming the design team at first place. It seems that we keep putting roadblocks on the path for the stateless solutions to get standardized. One after another. What's the purpose? It seems that the work done by the design team, which was formed for a reason, is being ignored. If not, then their documents would have been the WG documents by now and the email would be referring to MAP (and not 4rd). This is a bit disrespectful. I would suggest to put all the documents developed by the MAP design team as "Standards" track document, and anything else is up for discussion. Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: Alain Durand <adur...@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:38:42 -0700 To: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org> Cc: Yong Cui <cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn>, Ralph Droms <rdr...@cisco.com> Subject: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rd >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
