RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt> (An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)) to Informational RFC

["Black, David" <david.black@xxxxxxx>]

AB,

 

> in the section 2 it is clear:

> section 2 draft> This document uses the same terminology as [RFC7365].

> IMHO, it means that this draft has same terminology included in the draft as rfc7365

> (i.e., virtual DC is defined in RFC7365).

 

To be precise, the term “virtual DC” would be as defined in RFC 7365 *if* that term were used.  The virtual DC term is not used in this draft and it’s also not used in RFC 7365 outside of its definition in section 1.1.

> AB>  the authors can mention the different terminology or that virtual DC is not included in the architecture, but is there a reason why
> we should not add an information that points to this.

The terminology is not different, but the virtual DC concept is not needed to describe the NVO3 architecture or the NVO3 framework.

 

> For me as we can have a VLAN defined on a LAN, then we can have vDC on a DC.

 

Sure, see section 4.3 of the NVO3 use case draft - vDC could be mentioned as a use case example if a reference to that use case draft is added.

 

Thanks, --David

 

From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:20 AM
To: Black, David
Cc: ietf; matthew.bocci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; nvo3@xxxxxxxx; Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt> (An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)) to Informational RFC

 

Hi David,

 

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Black, David <david.black@xxxxxxx> wrote:

 

 

> > David> Virtual DCs are not part of the NVO3 architecture.

 

> but vDC was defined in the document

 

No it wasn’t - neither the “vDC” acronym nor its “virtual DC” expansion appear in the NVO3 architecture draft.

 

in the section 2 it is clear:

section 2 draft> This document uses the same terminology as

[RFC7365].

IMHO, it means that this draft has same terminology included in the draft as rfc7365 (i.e, virtual DC is defined in RFC7365). It is used in many drafts in IETF that authors don't like to repeat such similar RFC with similar approach (even in scientific articles it is great practice to reference related work).

AB>  the authors can mention the different terminology or that virtual DC is not included in the architecture, but is there a reason why we should not add an information that points to this. For me as we can have a VLAN defined on a LAN, then we can have vDC on a DC.

Thanks for your replies,

Best Regards

AB