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

Hi Chairs,

I am in support of both.

Thanks
Raghu

> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:37:52 +0800
> From: Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
> To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
> Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd
> Message-ID: <506D4AE0.4080709@cernet.edu.cn>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> Hi Chairs,
> 
> I am in favor of both.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> xing
> 
> Suresh Krishnan ??:
>> Hi all,
>>  During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to
>> determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the
>> sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed
>> standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the
>> room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational
>> specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty
>> as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg,
>> 
>> This call is being initiated to confirm two things:
>> 
>> a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and
>> 4rd as experimental documents.
>> b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to
>> working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.**
>> 
>> Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions
>> by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also
>> (re)state your objections in your response.
>> 
>> The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Suresh & Yong
>> 
>> * Questions are available at
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf
>> 
>> ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E
>> and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not
>> be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure
>> that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite)
>> review cycles.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:53:54 -0500
> From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
> To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
> Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd
> Message-ID:
>    <CAC8QAceQDSuTT9ZWqXwLg1sYQ9EjstvGd+AHG_cbuYpf42cS5w@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> Dear Chairs,
> 
> I think that your call needs some clarification.
> 
> First of all, there is no active document that describes 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn> wrote:
>> Hi Chairs,
>> 
>> I am in favor of both.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> xing
>> 
>> Suresh Krishnan ??:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>>  During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to
>>> determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the
>>> sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed
>>> standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the
>>> room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational
>>> specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty
>>> as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg,
>>> 
>>> This call is being initiated to confirm two things:
>>> 
>>> a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and
>>> 4rd as experimental documents.
>>> b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to
>>> working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.**
>>> 
>>> Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions
>>> by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also
>>> (re)state your objections in your response.
>>> 
>>> The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Suresh & Yong
>>> 
>>> * Questions are available at
>>> 
>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf
>>> 
>>> ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E
>>> and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not
>>> be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure
>>> that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite)
>>> review cycles.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwires mailing list
>>> Softwires@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
> 
> 
> End of Softwires Digest, Vol 83, Issue 4
> ****************************************