Dear Chairs, I think that your call needs some clarification.
First of all, there is no active document that describes MAP-T. I checked Roberta's draft, draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-00.txt, she gives no references. Is the intention of this call to put all of MAP-E, MAP-T and 4rd into equal weighting so that the decision can somehow be revisited? My experience with CAPWAP protocol selection that we did in 2006 is that WG continued to work on the selected protocol and developed extensions, MIB, etc. The other candidates became experimental with not much work on them. Regards, Behcet On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Xing Li <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chairs, > > I am in favor of both. > > Regards, > > xing > > Suresh Krishnan 写道: > >> 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. There was also general agreement in the >> room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational >> specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty >> as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, >> >> This call is being initiated to confirm two things: >> >> a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and >> 4rd as experimental documents. >> b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to >> working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** >> >> Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions >> 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 2012-10-05. >> >> Regards >> Suresh & Yong >> >> * Questions are available at >> >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf >> >> ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E >> and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not >> be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure >> that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) >> review cycles. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
