Thanks David for your clarification. I do support this draft and also would like to contribute. The "server without a hypervisor" case is more referring to the For the Physical Network Service Appliance with an External NVE case which is included in figure 1 of the draft. Of cause, we can discuss it more. For the clarification text, I would prefer to have it in the updated version of the draft. But this can be done after the adaptation.
Have a nice day Zu Qiang >-----Original Message----- >From: Black, David [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 11:56 AM >To: Zu Qiang; NVO3 >Subject: RE: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption of draft-yizhou-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp- >req-00 > >Hi Zu, > >> I have no objections to this adaptation. But I really prefer authors >> can make a clarifications on the scope of the draft. The terminologies >> used in the draft are not in line with the framework draft. > >Yes - this is the initial merge of text from three drafts written by at least >four >authors, so there's quite a bit of work still to be done, including lining up >terminology with the problem statement, framework and architecture drafts. >I do want to thank Yizhou for doing the bulk of the text surgery involved so >far. > >> If I understand the draft correctly, the control protocol is between >> the NVE and the device where the TS hold. This covers the case where >> the VM is running on top of a hypervisor or on the server without a >> hypervisor. And the protocol is only used to report to the NVE about >> the TS (e.g. VM) statues (e.g. connection or disconnection). The >> configuration data (e.g. inner-outer address mapping table) is >> retrieved using NVA-NVE interface, not the hypervisor-NVE interface. Is >that right understanding? > >That's close enough, although the "server without a hypervisor" case probably >needs some more discussion, as the TS is not expected to be involved in this >control protocol, so the control protocol may not extend to the server in all >variants of that case. OTOH, NVA-NVE interactions are definitely out of scope >for this draft; instead, see draft-ietf-nvo3-nve-nva-cp-req-02 for >requirements on those interactions. > >Thanks, >--David > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zu Qiang >> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 9:32 PM >> To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); NVO3 >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption of >> draft-yizhou-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req- >> 00 >> >> Hello, authors >> I have no objections to this adaptation. But I really prefer authors >> can make a clarifications on the scope of the draft. The terminologies >> used in the draft are not in line with the framework draft. The text >> in the introduction section is very confused. If I understand the >> draft correctly, the control protocol is between the NVE and the >> device where the TS hold. This covers the case where the VM is running >> on top of a hypervisor or on the server without a hypervisor. And the >> protocol is only used to report to the NVE about the TS (e.g. VM) >> statues (e.g. connection or disconnection). The configuration data >> (e.g. inner-outer address mapping table) is retrieved using NVA-NVE >interface, not the hypervisor-NVE interface. Is that right understanding? >> >> Have a nice day >> Zu Qiang >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew >> >(Matthew) >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 9:23 AM >> >To: NVO3 >> >Subject: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption of >> >draft-yizhou-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req- >> >00 >> > >> >This email begins a two week poll to help the chairs determine if >> >there is consensus to adopt draft-yizhou-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-00 as >> >an PWE3 working group draft. >> > >> >The draft can be found here: >> >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yizhou-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-00.txt >> > >> >Please read the draft and indicate to the list if you support >> >adoption, or if >> you >> >do not support adoption (giving reasons). >> > >> >Please note that this is only a call for adoption. There needs to be >> consensus >> >that this draft is a good basis for the work, but it does not need 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 PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author >> >or contributor, then please explicitly respond regarding IPR only if >> >you are >> aware >> >of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. >> > >> >The poll for adoption will close in two weeks time, on Friday 6th June. >> > >> >Matthew and Benson >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >nvo3 mailing list >> >[email protected] >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
