13 nov. 2014 21:00, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> : > On Nov 13, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: >> If the IESG, now proposes 2 standards instead of 1, that’s a choice I view >> as based on a misunderstanding. > > The IESG proposes one standard with three profiles or, if you prefer, three > standards instead of two. > >> I therefore vote against a WG support of this proposal. > > You were not asked for a vote.
Wasn’t so clear, but OK. > You were asked if you had any technical objection: some reason why MAP-T > might have interop problems or operational problems and thus ought to be only > an experiment and not a standard. (a) Incompatibility with path MTU discovery (standard-track RFC4821) is, in my understanding, sufficient a reason to keep MAP-T experimental. (b) I understand that the MAP-DHCP draft includes specifications for both MAP-E and MAP-T, and that an RFC cannot be both standard and experimental track. Isn’t it possible, in the MAP-DHCPv6 RFC to have: - for stateful operation, a MUST for lw4over6 - for stateless, a MUST for MAP-E, and, for MAP-T, a "MAY as long as it remains experimental, to become a MUST if and when " If (a) is deemed insignificant, and (b) is found impossible, I guess there is no more useful contribution I can hope to make for IPv4 across IPv6. Regards, RD > A process objection would also be viable, but as I've explained, I don't > think there _is_ a process objection you could raise here. > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
