Alain, You had initially announced that either one specification would be chosen for standard track (among T, E, and U), or specifications would all become WG drafts on the experimental track ((*) below). In Paris: (a)The MAP proposal became presented as an inseparable T+E package. (b) The WG couldn't make a consensus choice between T+E or U.
Now publishing both MAP-T+E and 4rd-U as WG documents on the experimental track, is therefore consistent with what was announced (and was also asked for by several at the end of the meeting). As you explained, this won't prevent from selecting one for standard track later on, based on better market experience. After what we had at IETF 83, this is in my understanding the only irreproachable course of action Thanks, RD Le 2012-03-20 à 00:38, Alain Durand a écrit : > 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
