Alain, et al, we have been at an impasse, so thank you very much for proposing a path forward.
> 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. I do agree with that. the Venn diagram for the three solutions would look awfully similar to a single circle. ;-) there are some use cases though, that can only be fulfilled with one mode of transport versus the other. I left the interim meeting in Beijing having been convinced that there are use cases requiring both encapsulation and requiring translation. if we for a moment accept that, I would suggest that we treat MAP as one single solution. it will have two options/flavours of transport. > 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. with the above proposal, we can drop question 3. > 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. can ask the chairs to take a hum of how many would want t-shirts for the meeting with: "Just pick one for F's sake and stop arguing". ;-) cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
