Dear WG Co-Chairs, I looked at your arguments in this email here and Softwaire WG agenda you proposed on Wed and Fri, I am kind of confusing, hope you can clarify:
There are several drafts discussed in Wed agenda which basically solved same problem as we discussed in Friday and they are all variant solution of encapsulations in stateless mode for 464 user case. how do you deal with all those proposals, should we put all of those along with MAP, 4rd-u as part of selecting decision from WG on Friday all together ? It will be unfair to treat those differently on Wed vs those on Friday ! If we are facing the problem for too many standard proposals from softwire WG, they occured in situations we had too many variant of encapsulations, so far, from what I can see, MAP represents the best efforts from WG to unify encapsulation and translation solutions from softwire. I agreed with many in this mailing-list said before, respect the collaborating efforts in past 6 month and select MAP as standard track,rather other individual variant such as 4rd-U, stateless DS-lite, etc. let us be more productive through collaboration than count-productive through more individual drafts. Best Regards, Kevin Yin On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Alain Durand <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
