IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sun, 16 November 2014 03:55 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 0B1A51A1A0E; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 19:55:28 -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 LH8Ix3btr6pX; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 19:55:26 -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 6CDC21A19F8; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 19:55:26 -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 43340DA00D5; Sun, 16 Nov 2014 03:55:22 +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 E842F53E077; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 19:54:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from divertimento.westell.com (98.116.24.82) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 19:54:55 -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: <C6BD4851-DEB5-412B-8D15-1710F532BDFF@laposte.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 17:54:43 -1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <2A7F8582-2146-443C-B145-F4A41852FB9F@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> <C8D98C6A-E93E-42F5-A7D2-937905A50D0A@nominum.com> <512D6244-019E-4F93-A406-BE6A61C42F9E@laposte.net> <5016EC0D-F5DA-4904-9DAC-8B89ED697B57@nominum.com> <769851A8-A0E6-4F9F-A109-D06F84989649@laposte.net> <13C56655-E235-47A5-BD2F-0E2D78E04824@nominum.com> <3FB31BBE-215E-4F8C-9738-87D4FB04477C@laposte.net> <0FE18293-DE62-4566-B138-99C37D7F48F0@nominum.com> <964622DA-0A82-4628-8392-F89C279C7E4D@laposte.net> <2CC52BA7-D385-436B-BC42-5C779673E8EF@nominum.com> <C6BD4851-DEB5-412B-8D15-1710F532BDFF@laposte.net>
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [98.116.24.82]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/13TayyOq2neKvKJgCuIwIuTuyWQ
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@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: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 03:55:28 -0000

On Nov 15, 2014, at 10:24 AM, Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> wrote:
> This seems to suggest that someone viewed this issue had been "a factor in the coin toss". 
> No one did AFAIK, and certainly not me. 
> But this isn’t the point.

If it wasn't a factor in the coin toss, it doesn't have anything to do with the working group's decision to choose Experimental vs. Proposed status.

> Even in its experimental status, I do think MAP-T's specification should have included a warning that it is incompatible with Path MTU Discovery of RFC4821, and that MAP-E should be used if such compatibility is desired.

I would not object to such a statement if the authors and the working group agree to add it, but that's not the question we're asking at the moment.

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