Hi Suresh, Thanks for clarifying.
I am in support of both a and b. Regards, Behcet On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
