+1. Besides, IETF already has specified many encapsulations, is it really that bad having one extra?
Linda From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 7:55 AM To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Cc: NVO3 Subject: Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on moving forward with a single encap. On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Please respond to this email on the NVO3 list by 29th July 2016: - Given the IETF's mission, should NVO3 move forward on the standards track with a single encapsulation on the standards track? If not, please explain your concern in detail. While the world would be a better place with only one encapsulation, I think it's better to stick with the original path of allowing the 3 encapsulations as experimental. The NVO3 charter says: >>> Based on these requirements the WG will select, extend, and/or develop one or more data plane encapsulation format(s). >>> Based on the charter, the WG has gone through the process of accepting to work on 3 encapsulations. What do we know now that we did not know back then? If we were going to progress only a single encapsulation, I think there would have been more critical feedback and strong suggestions for changing that "winning" encapsulation to accommodate what the other encapsulations perceive as their relative strengths. And we risk opening up that discussion now and delaying progress even more. Otherwise, not having a standard has not been a hinderance for getting protocols deployed in the past, and I suspect that if the developers of these encapsulations care enough, we will see deployments of all of them regardless of whether or not we progress them within the working group. Thanks, Anoop
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
