Hi Chairs, I am in support of both.
Thanks Raghu > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:37:52 +0800 > From: Xing Li <[email protected]> > To: Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> > Cc: Softwires WG <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hi Chairs, > > I am in favor of both. > > Regards, > > xing > > Suresh Krishnan ??: >> 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 >> >> >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:53:54 -0500 > From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> > To: Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> > Cc: Softwires WG <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd > Message-ID: > <cac8qaceqdsutt9zwqxwlg1syq9ejstvgd+ahg_cbuypf42c...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > 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 ??: >> >>> 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 > > > End of Softwires Digest, Vol 83, Issue 4 > **************************************** _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
