After the meeting, I've figured out that 4rd-u define new type of transport, since it adds several new semantics in its packet format with V-octet as a helper of packet format distinguisher. That kind of work is of course out of scope of Softwire working group. I therefore suggest to the 4rd-u authors that a new BOF or a working group which named like 'unified packet format for tunneling'.
Best regards, --satoru On 2012/04/01, at 16:38, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 3/31/12 4:56 PM, Rémi Després wrote: >> 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. > > Not sure that was the outcome - as I understood Alain, we'll make a decision > here on mailinglist in a very short period of time. > > Cheers, Jan > > _______________________________________________ > 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
