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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Behcet,

On 10/04/2012 11:53 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Dear Chairs,
> 
> I think that your call needs some clarification.
> 
> 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.

> 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?

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.

> 
> 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.

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

Thanks
Suresh