On 2012/04/07, at 4:01, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > 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
+1 shara, aplusp, now we're at stateless. this is final. --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
