IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] map-t to proposed standard rather than experimental

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 13 November 2014 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8D91ACF5D for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:01:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05jSqzMshnLJ for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FB1E1ACECB for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:01:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36BADDA01EF for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:00:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02FF53E080; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:00:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nat64.meeting.ietf.org (31.130.238.77) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:00:35 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <707539FA-16E8-4F9A-9644-499AF07D8060@laposte.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:00:29 -1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <C8D98C6A-E93E-42F5-A7D2-937905A50D0A@nominum.com>
References: <04453287-AE2D-47DF-80FF-2C717AE1B23E@nominum.com> <0131B885-9F7F-4F44-956C-91066AE512EA@laposte.net> <D088E4E6.72698%edwin.mallette@mybrighthouse.com> <707539FA-16E8-4F9A-9644-499AF07D8060@laposte.net>
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [31.130.238.77]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/-W9CxCmABggwv8AAJTXVTS-2CJ0
Cc: "Mallette, Edwin J." <Edwin.Mallette@mybrighthouse.com>, Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] map-t to proposed standard rather than experimental
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:01:19 -0000

On Nov 13, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> 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.   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 process objection would also be viable, but as I've explained, I don't think there _is_ a process objection you could raise here.

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status