well, let's see the other way around: what is the problem of publishing the two 
documents now?So that they are stable and have a RFC number. Then any 
implementer can implement based on the RFC. Providers can request their 
manufacturers to have a product which conforms to the RFC.

Marc.

Le 2012-04-03 à 14:56, Wojciech Dec a écrit :

> The irony is that this is an apples and oranges comparison, and throwing away 
> ripe apples into some box with raw oranges looks rather unfair.
> 
> Some of the of the indicators are:
> - MAP is not only the result of a consensus of a broad WG design team, but 
> also that of numerous authors of the merged drafts whihc have been discussed 
> for 1 year+. The 4rd-u technical proposals were evaluated by the design team, 
> and have not gained support there.
> - MAP running code exist
> - 4rd-U covers a technical corner case that is "self created" (if not self 
> invented/motivated)
> - 4rd-U does not allow v4-v6 communication (say a v4 host to a v6 sign-up 
> portal, etc)
> - 4rd-U is not by any means "universal". As admitted it requires the coupling 
> with BIH, which features the same technical corner case that 4rd-u claims to 
> solve (doh).
> 
> The other aspect is that some different measure appears to be being applied 
> in this selection *for WG adoption* vs the selection of the other drafts in 
> softwire, which have gained WG draft status without even a shred of running 
> code.
> 
> -Woj.
> 
> On 3 April 2012 18:32, Marc Blanchet <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't see a way out of this thread.
> 
> my suggestion:
> - published both as experimental
> - let the market decide
> - come back later to move one or the other standard track.
> 
> Above all, I think having a stable specification (i.e. RFC) that implementers 
> can code against  and providers to require is what is needed first.
> 
> Marc.
> 
> Le 2012-04-03 à 11:14, Jan Zorz @ go6.si a écrit :
> 
> > Dear Softwires WG chairs.
> >
> > For how long will you leave this useless cockfight go on instead of 
> > steering the working group into a direction, that may enable us to decide 
> > on something and chose the direction?
> >
> > We are running in circles here and just amplificating the noise, coming 
> > from certain usual suspects.
> >
> > Cheers, Jan
> >
> > P.S: I too enjoy observing the roosters fight, but I don't think we have 
> > time for this now. :)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Softwires mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
> 

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to