Marc,
An updated draft would be excellent -before Thursday, preferably.
Thanks,
Alia
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:01 AM, LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) <marc.lasserre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alia,I have replied and suggested some minor edits to address Linda and Lucy's comments. I have suggested to be protocol agnostic rather than giving specific examples in the multi-homing case.Some of Linda's comments have been discussed at length in the past and there was clear WG consensus that the framework draft addressed NVO3's problem.Let me know if you want me to post a revised draft based on these minor edits and some other suggested edits from other IETF reviewers received last week prior to next week IESG review.Regards,Marc
From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 8:59 PMSubject: Re: [nvo3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt> (Framework for DC Network Virtualization) to Informational RFC
Thomas,
The NVO3 Framework draft is in IETF Last Call, which isn't precisely stalled.It is true that Linda and Lucy have raised some concerns about it.
I have not yet heard from the WG chairs or authors whether the desired changeshave been previously discussed and had consensus determined in the WG. Linda indicated that hercomments had already been discussed on the nvo3 mailing list. Lucy is requesting that differenttechnology be indicated as examples - perhaps to give a sense of future possible solutions to thereaders of the draft.
If there is WG consensus to make a few minor edits, that can be done before theIESG review next week. It is on the next telechat, so I would appreciate speed inresolving the minor comment.
Regards,Alia
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've followed the discussion on this thread and want to go back to
something folk may have forgotten.
More than a year ago, the WG made a considered and conscious decision
to "ship" the framework documemnt more or less "as is" and start work
on a followup architecure document. It was known and expected that the
architecture document would become the focus of work moving forward
and that substantive additions/changes would go there. Even if it
meant the framework document would be less complete.
Sadly, it has been more than a year since that decision was made, yet
the framework document appears stalled and unable to get
published. I'll note that the problem statement document to which the
framework is a companion, has been languishing in the RFC editor queue
for almost a year now, blocked on a normative reference to the
definitions in the framework document.
FWIW, I think the framework is good enough to publish more-or-less as
is. Or more to the point, there just isn't energy to make significant
changes to the document given that the focus of the WG has long since
moved to the architecture document.
If folk have substantive issues with the framework, I'd strongly
suggest first looking at the architecture
(draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-01.txt) and seeing whether their concern exists
there, and of so, whether the archictecture document would be a better
place to address the concern.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3