IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sat, 15 November 2014 11:33 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 67FDA1A8711; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:33:17 -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 nHc7ELuUbRw5; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:33:15 -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 6FA591A8708; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:33:15 -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 59FC5DA024D; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 11:33:07 +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 2DBF353E07A; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.40.53] (64.134.154.26) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 03:32:45 -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: <964622DA-0A82-4628-8392-F89C279C7E4D@laposte.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 01:32:37 -1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <2CC52BA7-D385-436B-BC42-5C779673E8EF@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>
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [64.134.154.26]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/9Fsgzvstomqa9v8T2IY-Wz8UNWE
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: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 11:33:17 -0000

On Nov 14, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> wrote:
> PS: As this discussion continues, and as you didn’t answer my question about when the IESG should be informed, I hope you won’t find inappropriate my opening the channel now.

Normally the way it works is that the working group chairs do a consensus call; if someone believes that the consensus was called incorrectly, then that person appeals to the chairs.   If the chairs do not agree, that person would then appeal to the responsible AD.   If the responsible AD doesn't agree, then that person would appeal to the IESG as a whole.

It is true that double translation has the problem that the DF bit is not communicated through.   This is a limitation of the MAP-T specification.   I've asked the authors about this, and they did not deny that this limitation exists, so your claim that the authors are trying to conceal it seems a bit un-collegial.   As I said, the working group did consider this issue, and it was not a factor in the coin toss.

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