> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 11:41 PM
> To: Xuxiaohu; Tom Herbert
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] [Int-area] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-03.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

Sure. That's why we usually need to determine a WG which is more suitable for a 
given draft firstly in the IETF. If you firmly believe the more suitable WG for 
draft-ietf-nvo3-gue is NVO3, rather than INTAREA and TSVWG, please give your 
rationale.

Xiaohu

> > 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

Reply via email to