On 4/6/12 6:34 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
Yet, both MAP-T+E and 4rd-U on experimental track is the less
criticizable approach at this point, and permits "market-based
decision".
Hi,
Strongly disagree. In this case stateless A+P (E,T or U) gets abandoned
by vendors and CGN wins. Ask the vendors and please stop presuming.
Huawey is the only one who stated until now that they are willing to
experiment with 4rd-U. Others are waiting for decision and standard,
regardless if their employees are co-authors of E,T or U.
Repeating myself: A+P "standardization" process lasted for 2,5 years and
was unnecessary (politically) pushed away and blocked for at least 1
year. Then, when stateless flavors of A+P started to emerge additional
delay was introduced with request to write motivation document. Ok, was
not happy, but was not complaining too publicly and too loud. Now, when
we have an option to make a decision and we have mature and proven with
running code solutions, effort is dropped and/or watered down with
experimental track, so vendors are equally confused what to do.
Come on... we need to lower the noise level and make a decision.
Cheers, Jan
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
