Hi, Alain, Yiong, Ralph, Brian, 1. In view of the lack of sufficient consensus at the Softwire meeting for a choice between MAP-T+E and 4rd-U, several suggested, at the end of the meeting and after on the ML, to publish MAP-T+E and 4rd-U as experimental, with the expectation to select one later on.
As a matter of fact, this is in substance what Alain had proposed before IETF 83 if, during the meeting, there would be no consensus for one standard track and the other(s) informational. No such consensus having emerged, that would be the natural outcome. In the mean time, a vendor having announced on the ML its intention to "implement 4rd-u and do operational tests", it is clear that better understanding of issues will be possible to enlighten the WG before a final decision on what deserves standard track. 2. Question 1 below (*) formally excludes, independently from received responses, any possibility that both solutions be published as experimental (Yes => One on standard track; No => both on standard track.) I therefore note that this procedure, in addition to be confused (who may answer, with which conclusion process), is illegitimate. Taking this procedure as conclusive would therefore lead to an application of RFC2026 sec 6.5.1 (Working Group Disputes). OTOH, publishing now MAP-T+E and 4rd-U as WG documents on the experimental track would be indisputable. Regards, RD Le 2012-04-04 à 23:14, Alain Durand a écrit : > Dear Softwire wg members: > > At the Paris IETF Softwire meeting, we had presentations on MAP (taken as a > whole) and > 4rd-U. We got very strong feedback that we needed to select one > solution to cover that full stateless case, not two, and that we should make > this > decision relatively quickly. > > During Paris meeting, we asked the following additional question: > Do you prefer MAP or 4rd-U? > We got about 1/3 support for 4rd-U and 2/3 for MAP. > > The real gauge of consensus is the mailing list, so we would like > to ask the same questions to the list. > (*) > ===================================================================== > Question 1: Do you agree that the wg should put EITHER 4rd-U OR MAP (as a > whole) on the standard track, > the other being published as experimental or informational. > Answering YES to this question means you agree we cannot publish both as > standard track. > Answering NO to this question means you want to see both advance on the > standard track. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Your full name, your affiliation, your choice: YES or NO > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ===================================================================== > > Questions 2: Which one do you want to see placed on the Standards Track: > 4rd-U or MAP? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Your full name, your affiliation, your choice: 4rd-U or MAP > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ===================================================================== > > > > > Please fill out the following form and reply to the list > by Wednesday 4/10 5pm EDT. > > Note: Use this thread ONLY for expressing your support to > one OR the other, and redirect any discussions to other threads. > That would help up gauge consensus. > > Alain & Yong. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
