Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:37:52 +0800

Hi Chairs,

I am in favor of both.

Regards,

xing

Suresh Krishnan 写道:
> 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-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>
>

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:53:54 -0500

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

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:16:19 -0400

Hi Behcet,

> 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.

> 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.

> extensions, MIB, etc. The other candidates became experimental with

MAP-T and 4rd will be progressed as experimental if the wg is in favor
of continued work on them.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:38:06 +0800

I am no the author of two drafts,

It should be more convinced that there is a scenario and PS about the
motivation of the work.

Thanks autho for publishing it quite recently, that would be more
appropriate to discuss them during the coming IETF meeting before accept
them.
Otherwise IETF is going to invent the 2nd wheel for the same problem.

thanks a lot

-Hui

2012/9/25 Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>

---

From: Satoru Matsushima <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 00:08:23 +0900

Hi, I'm in favor of both a) and b).

cheers,
--satoru

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:20:42 -0500

Hi Suresh,

Thanks for clarifying.

I am in support of both a and b.

Regards,

Behcet