On 6/17/2016 1:31 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: >> > I don't see the benefit of moving this document out of NVO3 to obtain this >> > feedback. You're already getting it from very active members of both TSVWG >> > and INTAREA in this discussion, and there are already procedures for >> > cross-area >> > review. > It depends on whether this document is describing an generic UDP-based > tunneling technology or a network overlay technology for multi-tenancy. It > seems that this document is the former while draft-hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo is the > latter. So where does IP-in-UDP belong? It's a link for IP, so that belongs in the group designing/using the link. It's intended for IP, so that belongs in INTAREA. It uses and ties closely to UDP, so that belongs in TSVWG. But any service *over* a transport is an application, so it belongs in APP (do we even have that anymore?).
There's no simple answer. > Besides, IMHO, cross-area review could never replace the detailed and deep > work within the most appropriate WG. We have IETF-wide LC, cross-area targeted reviews requested by the document shepherd, and subgroups (e.g., Directorates in most areas, though it was recently renamed "TSV-Triage" in transport) who already handle these sort of "multihomed" docs just fine. If that didn't work, we'd constantly be reshuffling where docs appear, which we don't. Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
