Hi Lizhong. > After reading this draft, I find it still combines many possible options > (e.g, dataplane). Hope to see a draft with much more clear opinion in next > version.
Not sure what you mean here when you say "combines many possible options (e.g., dataplane)." One thing that became apparently in writing this document is that the WG hasn't actually (on the record) decided number of things. To me, some of the decisions are obvious (in the sense that they make sense to me and others I've talked to), but that is not the same as the WG actually weighing in making a choice. One of the key differences between the architecture document and the framework document is that the framework is a bit more open ended in terms of possible approaches, whereas the architecture will reflect the architectural choices the WG has made for NVO3. So, an important goal in putting together this strawman is to get feedback and see where folk seem to say "yes", and where they say "actually, we should do something different..." I'll respond to your specific questions in separate threads, so that it's a bit easier to track/follow the issues. Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
