Marc,
Let's not try to make something hard out of this.
Janos suggested that certain statements made in your draft are not
particularly
true (or applicable) if existing standard capabilties have been deployed.
You responded (paraphrasing) that - while this is true - there are networks
where
these capabilities are not part of the layer-2 deployment, and there are
customers
who would prefer a layer-3 solution.
So far, I have no gripe with this.
However, Joel points out that the current wording makes it appear that the
driving
justification for doing this work in layr-3 is that existing layer-2
standards/solutions
won't work. He further points out that this is not consistent with your own
admission
that there are well-known layer-2 standards/solutions that address the
limitations you
list.
Apparently, it was not your intent to make it sound this way.
Without going line by line through the introduction, the general changes
required
to bring what you are saying back into alignment with what we all apparently
agree
is the case are relatively obvious and simple.
1) The simplest change would be to remove the statements about layer-2
limitations
as Janos has suggested. I think we all understand why perhaps this is not
the
way you want to go. Fine.
2) If you are going to list the limitations that you now list, you need to make
it clear
these are "perceived" limitations based on currently deployed layer-2
networking
technology, in some networks.
3) If one of the key reasons why we want to define a layer-3 solution is that
there is
a demand from customers for a layer-3 solution, simply say that rather than
giving
inaccurate second-hand information about "perceived" reasons for this
preference
based on out-of-date layer-2 deployments.
Does this help?
--
Eric
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
