I'm new to the group, but I made my vote because I have studied both solutions. I was unable to find any running code for 4rd-U that I could test and verify, while I was able to do that with MAP.
I voted based on the quote about the IETF from David Clark: "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code". As I was unable to find 4rd-U running code I voted against 4rd-U. I believe that the author of 4rd-U should explore his idea and have running code to prove it works. When the 4rd-U comes to this stage come back to the group. This is similar to what happened with 6rd. If this code already exist, please make it public so it could be verified. Edwin Cordeiro Em 26-04-2012 06:50, Mark Townsley escreveu: >> Because of the history of MAP and 4rd-U, we will designate independent teams >> of volunteer reviewers to advise the working group about the state of the >> document sets. Each set will be reviewed by an independent team who are not >> authors of the MAP and 4rd-U documents. Each review team will consist of >> three members and will determine when its document set is ready for working >> group last call. If you are interested in volunteering for one of the review >> teams, please respond directly to the chairs, indicating your preference for >> which document to review if you have one. The appointment of the review >> teams will be entirely up to the chairs. Aside from these appointed reviews, >> the chairs would naturally appreciate any and all reviews provided, >> regardless of whether the reviewer(s) participate on a review team. > > Seems like a pending procedural quagmire. > > Perhaps we would have been better off with the coin toss. > > - Mark > _______________________________________________ > 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
