In addition, if merging the drafts, the "merged draft" will need several extra sections to describe Layer 2 extension, Layer 2 closed user groups, the communications within Closed User Groups, and the communication between the Closed User Groups.
With those sections added, extra text has to devoted to differentiate the Layer 2 context from the original Layer 3 focused discussion. As of now the draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement is very Layer 3 focused. Linda Dunbar > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 5:03 PM > To: Thomas Narten; Yakov Rekhter > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Linda > Dunbar; [email protected]; [email protected]; wim.henderickx@alcatel- > lucent.com; Luyuan Fang (lufang) > Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt as > nvo3 WG documen > > > Thomas, > > Besides optimal routing that is covered in section 3.4, the draft also > talks about layer-2 extension and differentiation between VLANs and > VLAN-Ids - sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Although section 3.5 may be > obvious > but it is worth to be noted as well. > > Also, this draft talks about the presence of these mobility issues not > just for intra-DC but also for inter-DC scenarios (and furthermore > inter-AS). > > I either don't see these mobility issues been covered in the problem > statement draft or if they have been covered not to this extent. > Although > you may have a concern regarding proliferation of additional drafts; > however, at the same time we don't want to impede the progress either. > > So, if it is decided to merge this draft with problem statement draft, > then the coverage in problem statement draft should be to the same > extent > as this one. Since Yakov is the primary author of this draft, I'd like > to > hear his take. > > Cheers, > Ali > > > On 11/28/12 11:02 AM, "Thomas Narten" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >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
