Behcet, > -----Original Message----- > From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 12:09 PM > To: Benson Schliesser; Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] VM Mobility Draft > > Hi Ben, Matthew, > > Yes, nvo3 worked on problem statement and issues on VM mobility. I > support progressing Linda's draft.
As a co-author I support progressing the draft. If, as Benson said in the e-mail below, there is "some private feedback that I’d like to see discussed on the list before we take that step", I suggest to discuss this feedback as part of the WG Last Call. Yakov. > > I just wonder if, with the new charter, nvo3 will be able work on VM > mobility solutions, including on VXLAN environments? > > Regards, > > Behcet > > > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Benson Schliesser > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Linda - > > > > (I’ve changed the message Subject to better reflect this topic.) > > > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I think we should decide how to handle this based on a WG discussion > about the draft, instead of binding it to the rechartering. It might be > worthwhile to have a brief presentation on the draft at the 11-Sep > virtual interim meeting - can one of the authors lead this? > >> > >> [Linda] The mobility draft is to address an important area of VM > mobility in Data Centers, which the WG had adopted to become WG draft > long time ago. We sent request for WG Last call many months ago. But > there hasn't been any action. Since the MILESTONEs have separate items > for IESG Review and WG adoption for many drafts, it is necessary to list > VM Mobility as well. > > > > I see two related questions here. First is the question about whether > we need to create a milestone for the VM Mobility draft. Second is > whether it is ready for last call. > > > > On the first topic, I don’t see value in debating this, but I will > explain my decision. I consider the VM Mobility draft to be a “companion” > to the Problem Statement. And I assert that if it is complete (or nearly > complete) then a milestone is unnecessary from a management tracking > perspective. Thus, we do not need another milestone specifically for a VM > Mobility Issues document unless the WG feels that it needs more work, > material changes, etc. > > > > On the second topic, personally I agree with you that the VM Mobility > Issues draft should be last-called soon. However, I’ve had some private > feedback that I’d like to see discussed on the list before we take that > step. Specifically, a couple people commented that the draft is > unnecessary, questioning whether it adds materially to what is already > captured in the Problem Statement. I’m not endorsing this point of view, > but nor am I challenging it. > > > > Thus, in my last message I submitted a request for you to present the > draft at the upcoming interim meeting, to give us a chance to discuss > this feedback. I’m also happy to discus this here on the mailing list. > But I’d like to see some kind of response before making a decision to > last-call the draft. > > > > Thanks, > > -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
