Pedro, You and Thomas are in violent agreement about what to delete - Thomas put the new text *above* the text to be replaced (!).
Thanks, --David +++Sent from Blackberry ----- Original Message ----- From: Pedro Roque Marques [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 07:46 PM To: Thomas Narten <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nvo3] RFC4364 text in problem statement [was Re: call for adoption: draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-02] Thomas, On Jun 29, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > Pedro Roque Marques <[email protected]> writes: > >> Benson, >> I object to the document on the following points: > >> 2) It appears to "dismiss" RFC4364 based on the requirements of section >> 2.7. > > OK. This is clearly a contentious point and will need to be deferred > to when we do a gap analysis. > > Proposed new text: > > There are a number of VPN approaches that provide some if > not all of the desired semantics of virtual networks. A gap > analysis will be needed to assess how well existing > approaches satisfy the requirements. > > To replace: > > There are number of VPN approaches that provide some of the > desired semantics of virtual networks > (e.g., <xref target="RFC4364"></xref>). But VPN approaches > have traditionally been deployed across WANs and have not > seen widespread deployment within enterprise data > centers. They are not necessarily seen as supporting the > characteristics outlined in Section 2.7. > > Does that work? "not necessarily seen as supporting the characteristics outlined in Section 2.7" does not work for me unless you refute the arguments put forward by several people that in fact it does support these characteristics. In fact more so than other referenced technologies. "have not seen widespread deployment" is also not something that looks like it would belong here. They have seen deployment. And i doubt that the intent is to look at market share since any new solution that gets proposed has 0 market share by definition. Should we also discount any of the other technologies discussed in the doc since clearly nothing has significant market share compared to VLANs ? > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
