> The architecture document now became an RFC, it is RFC 7365. > Which next version will make this clearer?
That would be the framework document (draft-ietf-nvo3-framework). There should be a new version of the architecture document (draft-ietf-nvo3-arch) before the Honolulu draft cutoff. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:15 PM > To: Thomas Narten > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility- > scheme-00.txt > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Thomas Narten <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Tom. > > > >> Migration may be a better term than mobility, but the other part of > >> the phrasing, "node", was to encompass non-VM uses cases of network > >> virtualization migration in DC-- like job migration, container > >> migration. Is nvo3 explicitly about "VM" migration so that these > >> other cases are out of scope? > > > > Other cases have always been in scope (e.g., Linux containers, AIX > > LPARs, Solaris Zones, etc.). We just use the terms VMs and hypervisors > > all the time because that is the common case, at least at the > > moment. Looking at the framework and problem statement docs, this > > isn't called out as clearly as it should be. > > > > > The next version of the architecture document will make this > > clearer. I.e., we had a discussion a while back on the list related > > to Linux containers. > > > The architecture document now became an RFC, it is RFC 7365. > Which next version will make this clearer? > > Regards, > > Behcet > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
