On 7/20/12 9:14 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Actually I do not think that draft-kompella-nvo3-server2nve fits to the
agenda and charter of this WG at all.
I don't agree with everything in the document but I find it
enormously useful in laying out in reasonable if imperfect
detail what the processes are, what messages are needed
between which elements, and so on. I'm not sure that decoupling
a network overlay from its use is likely to lead to good results,
and a document like this can help identify real-world requirements,
deployment scenarios, etc.
If I may step back here a second: it's pretty clear that this working
group is not going to be able to come to consensus on anything and that
much of the difference is ideological rather than technical. I think it
would be helpful if people added this phrase to their working
vocabulary: "I disagree but I can live with it." You know, like "I
think this document is flawed but it's a starting point." "I am
committed to this working group making progress and therefore I'm
willing to compromise on a few points." Stuff like that.
Melinda
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
