Subject: [Softwires] Inputs to the charter

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:29:44 +0700

Hi,

Regarding the actual charter in the web page, my main concern/question is
why initially only the setup phase is considered ?

I think is clear that being independent, both can be done in parallel and we
can move faster on the overall goal. If for whatever reason the discovery
solution comes later, as they are independent, is not an issue, but probably
overall, will move faster vs. "serial mode".

I disagree with the need for documents which are already in the RFC queue
(or RFCs), this will close the doors to opportunities of simpler things
which can be still "in the kitchen". Of course, it depends on fixing a
deadline which is fair enough. I'm not even sure this is acceptable in the
IETF process.

Regards,
Jordi

************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:53:39 +0200

>overall, will move faster vs. "serial mode".
We only have a finite number of chairs, ADs, meeting times, document 
editors, etc. So, the cost of doing it in parallel isn't entirely free. 
I got the impression from the presenters at the BoF that while 
auto-discovery would be a nice to have, the control protocol (and 
associated encap) was the critical piece. There's nothing stopping us 
from thinking about auto-discovery, I simply don't want to spend a lot 
of WG resources until we at least have the control protocol and 
encapsulation nailed down. Let's walk before we learn to run.

>deadline which is fair enough. I'm not even sure this is acceptable in the
I hope my previous email clarifies this further.

- Mark

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:11:41 +0700

Hi Mark,

I don't recall that being queried in the BoF to the participants, but I may
be wrong; if that's the case, it should be in the minutes and probably
discussed as part of the charter discussion ?

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:53:39 +0200
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: [Softwires] Inputs to the charter
> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
>> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>