Le 13 nov. 2014 à 01:46, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On Nov 11, 2014, at 11:46 PM, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: >> What makes objections to become blocking may be unclear, but I hope that the >> above will be enough for the WG to maintain its old and wise consensus. > > For an objection to be blocking, you should be able to say that some > interoperability issue exists or is thought to exist in the document that > needs to be explored, and that is the reason for the experiment. Otherwise > the presumption is that an experimental document could be promoted to > standards track at any time after publication. Thanks for the clarification. 1. Concerning interoperability, can a MAP-T-only CPE communicate with a MAP-E only DTE? AFAIK, the answer is a clear NO. 2. Note that, although MAP-E being THE standard, necess , any ISP that provides CPEs to all its customers can deploy any workable solution of its own for the same purpose. - If the design is right, it can work perfectly. - Two such solutions are specified in IETF for this (in addition to the standard itself), with different pros and cons (MAP-T and 4rd). For ISPs whose CPEs may be supplied by customers themselves, interworking between CPEs depends on all of them supporting only THE standard. This becomes supporting ALL THE standards if there are several. This being said, if the WG consensus becomes that 2 standards are preferred to 1, my point is that it should be done consciously. Besides, my personal view remains that, for a given purpose, 1 standard is better than 2. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
