Hi Anoop,

Thank you for the great comments. Yes, the requirement should apply to both L2 
and L3 connectivity. We will make that clear in next version. Yes, we should 
not give the detail solution in requirement draft, will fix that too.

Thanks,
Lucy

From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 6:53 PM
To: NVO3
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for WG adoption of draft-yizhou-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-00


This looks like a reasonable starting point.

But I have some comments...

The document seems to focus only on the case where the TS to NVE is 
accomplished using L2 connectivity.  Is there a reason it chooses to exclude L3 
connectivity?  If so, what is the rationale for that?  It would be good to 
document that.

Second, it talks about the case where a TS forwards using multiple MAC 
addresses and requires the registration of all of the MAC addresses.  But what 
about the case where the TS is a transparent appliance?  In that case, it may 
not have MAC addresses to register and may operate simply by flipping the VLAN 
ID.

Finally, being a requirements document, it shouldn't discuss solution, yet it 
gets into defining state machines and provides the exemplary details of VDP 
(but no details for any of the other solutions).

Anoop


-----Original Message-----
From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On 
Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:23 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]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

Reply via email to