Thomas, I think both the changes Florian suggests are correct (and were probably the result of some cutting and pasting).
Florian, Thanks for sending this again, I recall you sent this to me earlier and I forgot to make the changes. - Larry On 5/31/13 10:10 AM, "Thomas Narten" <[email protected]> wrote: >> What are the specific text changes that you are suggesting? > > wdiff shows: "VN Names" and "VN Aliases" swaps: > > >VN Alias: A string name for a VN as used by administrators and > customers to name a specific VN. A VN Alias is a human-usable > string that can be listed in contracts, customer forms, email, > configuration files, etc. and that can be communicated easily > vocally (e.g., over the phone). A VN [-Name-] {+Alias+} is >independent of the > underlying technology used to implement a VN and will generally > not be carried in protocol fields of control protocols used in > virtual networks. Rather, a VN Alias will be mapped into a VN > Name where precision is required. > >I actually think "VN Name" is slightly better above. > >VN ID: A unique and compact identifier for a VN within the scope of > a specific NVO3 administrative domain. It will generally be more > efficient to carry VN IDs as fields in control protocols than VN > [-Aliases.-] > {+Names.+} There is a one-to-one mapping between a VN Name and a VN > ID within an NVO3 Administrative Domain. Depending on the > technology used to implement an overlay network, the VN ID could > be used as the VN Context in the data plane, or would need to be > mapped to a locally-significant context ID. > >I agree that "VN Names" would be better above. > >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
