Tina
On Jul 10, 2012, at 7:34 AM, "Simon Perreault" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/10/2012 05:46 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >> This draft contains valuable advices which can apply to 4rd as well as to >> MAP-T+E, but is exclusively MAP oriented. >> As such, I find it premature to move it to WG-draft status. >> >> If 4rd is chosen for standardization, adapting this deployment draft to it >> looks easy. >> I therefore suggest to keep it as is for the time being (while pursuing >> discussion on its contents). > > I tend to agree with Rémi. The draft could also apply to 4rd very easily: a > search and replace, some minor modifications, and we're done. How about use the word "stateless"? Then it can work now and later. > > If we eventually need to change what protocol this document applies to, it > would be better to do it before adoption rather than after. Just because of > process. We wouldn't want to deal with an objection late into the process > claiming that this draft diverged from the scope it had when it was adopted, > and maybe have to backtrack and do it all over again. > > So I say we play it safe, wait for the MAP-vs-4rd situation to be resolved, > adjust the document as necessary, then adopt. > > Assuming the MAP-vs-4rd situation gets resolved quickly (hint! hint!), a > small delay shouldn't be a problem. > > My 2¢ Canadian. > > Simon > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
