Yakov, Actually, the chairs did respond to your first request. See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg01764.html.
The one response to this I see in the archive said: > > Can you and/or your co-authors please comment on the following two > > questions: 1. How does the draft apply to our charter and milestones? > > WH> it addresses the following part of the charter: > Support the placement and migration of VMs anywhere within the data > center, without being limited by DC network constraints such as the IP > subnet boundaries of the underlying DC network. This seems like a pretty weak justification to me. Not every document related to VM migration will automatically be in scope as an NVO3 WG document. IMO, this document by itself doesn't really make sense as a standalone WG document. The document is pretty short. If you skip the definitions/background, the "meat" seems to be section 3.4. This section covers ground that the problem statement covers (though could be expanded on, i.e., to explicitly also mention the case of in-bound traffic). I.e., see section 3.7. (And note that the issue can occur within a single data center, you don't need to have a virtual network span multiple data centers as your document seems to focus on.) My suggestion would be to have the problem statement expand section 3.7 to explicitly cover both the ingress and egress cases. Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
