Hi Behcet, On 10/04/2012 11:53 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Dear Chairs, > > I think that your call needs some clarification. > > First of all, there is no active document that describes MAP-T.
Correct. There is no such draft yet. The idea is to split out the MAP-T pieces of the MAP draft into a separate draft if the wg is in favor of continuing work on 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? No. Not at all. On the contrary we are going with MAP-E as the proposed standard solution. This call is to decide what we want to do with the other two solutions. > > 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. MAP-T and 4rd will be progressed as experimental if the wg is in favor of continued work on them. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
