"NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <[email protected]> writes: > Thanks for clarifying. The section 4.7 would have to be updated > accordingly.
> I think it is important to state the assumptions about the > properties (e.g., multicast support or, better, its lack of) of the > underlying network in the problem statement draft. Section 4.7 currently says: 4.7. Individual Submissions Many individual submissions also look to addressing some or all of the issues addressed in this draft. Examples of such drafts are VXLAN [I-D.mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan], NVGRE [I-D.sridharan-virtualization-nvgre] and Virtual Machine Mobility in L3 networks[I-D.wkumari-dcops-l3-vmmobility]. I have purposefully tried not made statements as to how well any specific solution does or does not meet any requirements. That seems more appropriate for the gap analysis. IMO, text about how best to support tenant multicast, etc. doesn't belong in the problem statement. Indeed, there was text on how to support tenant multicast in earlier versions of the document that was removed in the current version in favor of not duplicating what was in the framework doc. I'd like to hear from others before adding additional text on this to the problem statement. Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
