Pat,
Thanks for the comment/input.
Your view is completely compatible with the way I've
interpreted comments we've
seen (from Xiaohu and Linda) about how the candidate technologies for control
plane are
not necessarily the same as for the dataplane. Hence we (as a WG) need to look
at exactly
what level of independence is appropriate for this work.
One substantial improvement your comment adds is to provide
additional examples
of where a non-overlap exists. Thanks very much for this input.
As your input illustrates, there is not a complete
independence. Some control plane
alternatives are likely to be more appropriate for some data-plane
alternatives. In at least a
few cases, control-plane and data-plane choices may be inseparable.
As Thomas Narten said in response to a question about adoption
criteria, candidate
drafts will often (if not usually/always) require additional work from the WG.
This is true of this draft more than many, for a number of
reasons:
1) this draft is the final product of the current charter - accentuating the
fact that it is entirely
a working group product.
2) this draft depends on a number of other drafts that are not necessarily
sufficiently mature
at this point to allow for this draft to be anything more than a work in
progress.
3) this draft is intended to document an analysis of a variety of potential
alternative solutions
against requirements established by the WG, hence -
A) a big part of the effort I expect to be needed in progressing this
draft is in managing the
contention within the working group (thus progress will necessarily
consist of a number
of baby steps [I anticipate needing to produce more than 10 drafts
before we get to WG
last call - which means we need to get moving on it]), and
B) the vast majority of the actual analysis needs to come from the WG - as
input similar to
that which you have provided.
Again, thanks for your input!
--
Eric
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pat
Thaler
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 7:04 PM
To: Lucy yong; Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); Lizhong Jin
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for adoption and IPR check:
draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt
Matthew,
I support this way of documenting gap analysis, but in some cases, the top of
the charts aren't filled out with useful candidates.
NVGRE and VXLAN are primarily NVE to NVE protocols. They don't define a VN to
NVE control plane and I can think of at least one candidate for the VN to NVE
control plane that would work for both NVGRE and VXLAN. Possibly that is true
for some of other data plane candidate protocols. For the charts in 5.2, I
think at least NVGRE and VXLAN shouldn't be there. A couple of us are working
on a draft that will explore the use of IEEE 802.1 VDP as a VN to NVE control
plane that could pair with NVGRE and VXLAN (and any other protocol that needs
similar information transferred between the hypervisor and the NVE.
I think that the same is true for 5.1 but I don't know what the candidates
should be.
Regards,
Pat
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lucy yong
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 9:43 AM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); Lizhong Jin
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for adoption and IPR check:
draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt
Matthew,
If the draft was more completed in the template development, it would lift
people comfort level on the draft more.
I support this way for documenting gap analysis.
Thanks,
Lucy
From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:53 AM
To: Lucy yong; Lizhong Jin
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for adoption and IPR check:
draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt
Lucy, Lizhong,
The point of adopting the draft is to provide a base document that the WG can
develop further. One would expect that development to include some conclusions
on the technology direction going forward. At this stage, a draft does not have
to be complete or have concrete conclusions to be adopted. If the draft is
adopted, then the editors must reflect the consensus of the WG In the draft
including conclusions on the technology choices.
Regards
Matthew
On 17/09/2013 16:36, "Lucy yong"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This is what I see as well. I like to hear the answer for the question.
Lucy
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lizhong Jin
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:27 AM
To: Matthew Bocci
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for adoption and IPR check:
draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt
Hi,
It seems this draft provides a template for analysis without any conclusion. Or
did I missed somthing important?
I would support if the draft could provide further insightful technology
viewpoint. Or is it intentional for the WG to adopt first, and then generate
the technology view?
Thanks
Lizhong
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:57:05 +0000
Subject: [nvo3] Poll for adoption and IPR check:
draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt
This email begins a two week poll to help the chairs judge if there is
consensus to adopt draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt as an NVO3 working
group draft.
Please respond to this email on the list with 'support' or 'do not support'.
Please also send any comments on the draft to the NVO3 list.
Please consider whether this draft takes the right basic approach to a gap
analysis, and is a good basis for the work going forward (and potential future
rechartering). It does not have to be perfect at this stage.
Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to
this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this
email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will not be
adopted until a response has been received from each author and contributor.
If you are on the NVO3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or
contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR
that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
This poll closes on Friday 20th September.
Regards
Matthew and Benson
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
