RE: Please review documens on IESG Agenda for January 19, 2006

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Apparently the WG did not want to choose.
This is actually being discussed at the IESG level too.
If I was the primary AD for this WG they would have a much
harder time from me. But I guess not all ADs think the same.

I will continue to raise the same question, knowing that we
have more peiople who find this strange.

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 21:34
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Please review documens on IESG Agenda for 
> January 19, 2006
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> > [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > 
> > 2.1.2 Returning Item
> >   o draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-06.txt
> >     Virtual Private LAN Service (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2 
> >     Note: This document and draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp are 
> > different solutions 
> >     to similar problems. L2VPN agreed to advance both and 
> > essentially "let the 
> >     market decide." 
> >     Token: Mark Townsley
> >   o draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-08.txt
> >     Virtual Private LAN Services over MPLS (Proposed 
> > Standard) - 2 of 2 
> >     Note: This document and draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp are 
> > different solutions 
> >     to similar problems. L2VPN agreed to advance both and 
> > essentially "let the 
> >     market decide." 
> >     Token: Mark Townsley
> > 
> >
> 
> This is not a MIB-related question, yet I will ask it. Why did the WG
> recommend to advance two documents that represent two solutions to the
> same problem to Proposed, and "let the market decide" rather than
> proposing them as Experimental, in a first phase, until "the market
> decides"?
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
>