Please move this discussion to a new thread. The topic for this thread is confirmation of consensus for selecting MAP-E.
- Ralph On Aug 8, 2012, at 10:51 AM 8/8/12, Rémi Després wrote: > > Le 2012-08-08 à 16:13, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) a écrit : > >> +1 >> >> I also support MAP-E and MAP-T, as Maglione pointed out. We need to be >> respectful of the design team that produced MAP based on consideration and >> requirements. > > >> Not to forget that MAP-T (unlike others) has already been deployed. > > Without ignoring that, > - the clear order of preference for a single standard solution has been in > Vancouver first MAP-E, then 4rd, then MAP-T well behind, > - the design team of 4rd also deserves respect, > - a number of issues have yet to be closed regarding what is exactly MAP-T, > could you communicate, for the sake of information, the DMR, and the > BMRs/FMRs if any, of the deployment(s) you are referring to? > > Thanks, > RD > >> >> Cheers, >> Rajiv >> >> Sent from my Phone >> >> On Aug 8, 2012, at 5:35 AM, "Maglione Roberta" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> in my opinion the design team did a great job in creating the MAP draft as >>> a common baseline specification for MAP-T and MAP-E flavors and the >>> presentations we saw in Vancouver last week shown that implementations for >>> both MAP-T and MAP-E already exist and they just differs for few lines of >>> code. >>> >>> As this working group already discussed in the past, there are use cases >>> that can be simply covered by MAP-T flavor of the MAP solution, for example >>> being able to apply ACL's and policies tied to customer's profile stored >>> in Radius server at the BNG level without requiring additional work and >>> correlations on the BR. >>> Speaking as a Service Provider I do care about these use cases, thus I >>> would encourage the working group to adopt the current MAP draft as is >>> (including MAP-T and MAP-E) as the basis for the proposed standard >>> stateless solution and keep working on common MAP solution. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Best regards, >>> Roberta >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan >>> Sent: mercoledì 8 agosto 2012 0.02 >>> To: Softwires WG >>> Subject: [Softwires] Call for confirming the selection of MAP-E as the >>> basis for the proposed standard stateless solution >>> >>> Hi all, >>> During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to >>> determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the >>> sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed >>> standard stateless solution. >>> >>> This call is being initiated to confirm whether there is WG consensus >>> towards the selection of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed standard >>> stateless solution. Please state whether or not you're in favor of this >>> selection by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please >>> also (re)state your objections in your response. The call will complete >>> at midnight EDT on 2012-08-21. >>> >>> Regards >>> Suresh & Yong >>> >>> * Questions are available at >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Softwires mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>> >>> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle >>> persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante >>> dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora >>> abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di >>> darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua >>> distruzione, Grazie. >>> >>> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged >>> information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, >>> printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the >>> intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and >>> advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Softwires mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
