Re: [Gen-art] The coin toss (was Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-05.txt)

["Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Suresh,

your description, which I don¹t dispute, does not convey the importance of
Q5, which ultimately was the question the chairs verified via the call on
the WG mailer. I.e. The choices for progressing the MAP-T draft, post
split from MAP-E, were:
- ³Experimental from the WG²
- ³Don¹t work on them in the WG²

Given that there were numerous parties that wanted it to remain a WG
document, the net effect of the coin-toss was thus, indeed to split from
MAP-E standards track, and to put MAP-T on the ³experimental track².

Historical clarifications aside thought, and perhaps more relevantly, the
MAP-T authors do not think that the draft¹s designation as ³Experimental²
is technically objectively justified.

Regards,
Wojciech.


On 14/10/2014 17:28, "Suresh Krishnan" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Hi Dan,
>
>On 10/13/2014 10:46 AM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:
>> Hello Dan,
>>
>> Thank you for you comments. I¹m reading an updated draft, however there
>> is one point that I am unable to address fully:
>>
>> ³2."2.The status of this document is Experimental. It is not clear why.
>> There are no experimental documents in the softwire WG charter, and the
>> status of the Œsister¹ document draft-ietf-softwire-map is Standards
>> Track. Why the difference?²
>>
>> Together with the other authors, we fully agree that the draft does not
>> fit the ³experimental² status, as in it actually uses standards track
>> technology (NAT64) as well as the sister (standard track) MAP. There
>> also are a number of reports about MAP-T testing
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cordeiro-experience-mapt-01 ), and a
>> handful of commercial implementations. As Xing commented earlier on, the
>> decision on the track was made by the WG by means of a coin toss, which
>> in our opinion wasn¹t based on technical merits.
>
>Just so that nobody misunderstands what happened with the coin toss, I
>will explain what the coin toss was about. First off, I want to state
>that MAP-T's experimental status **WAS NOT** determined by a coin toss.
>
>The coin toss only determined whether MAP-E and MAP-T were to be treated
>as one solution or two. The WG was split on this question and I opted to
>ask the ADs for a coin toss to resolve this deadlock. Period. The coin
>toss was not used for anything else.
>
>The questions I used can be found in the proceedings at
>
>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf
>
>MAP-E was confirmed as the Standards track solution starting with this
>thread that I initiated.
>
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04719.html
>
>The WG opted to publish MAP-T as an experimental document as a result of
>*another* consensus call. Thread at
>
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04817.html
>
>Hope this clarifies things a bit.
>
>Thanks
>Suresh
>
>