Lizhong,
Where scalability is a requirement, each candidate solution
will be compared
against the specific requirement(s). While it is not the intent to directly
compare any
solution with any other, comparing multiple solutions against a requirement
will make
it fairly easy for a reader to perform the direct comparison.
Note that a complete analysis would include proposals that
would be expected
to improve scalability of those candidate solutions that as options to be
considered in
deciding next steps.
Also note that the comparison should not be "pass/fail" as much
as possible, but
should instead indicate expected scalability associated with (potential)
implementations
of each approach.
As a caveat, however, it is important to realize that the
scalability of any specific
solution will depend to some extent at least on how it is implemented. Hence
it may be
exceptionally hard to determine precise scalability numbers for some specific
solutions.
Mostly this will require reasonable discussion in the working
group.
--
Eric
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lizhong
Jin
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 12:30 PM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Cc: [email protected]; Lucy yong
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for adoption and IPR check:
draft-gbclt-nvo3-gap-analysis-00.txt
Hi Matthew,
Thank you for the explanation. Then I am OK with the adoption since this is WG
adoption, not WG last call.
One comments to the draft, one of the motivation for NVO3 is to solve the
scaling problem as described in the charter. Then the scaling factor for each
solution should be considered.
Regards
Lizhong
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
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
