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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Suresh,

Thanks for clarifying.

I am in support of both a and b.

Regards,

Behcet

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Suresh Krishnan
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
>