Alia,
On Jul 21, 2016, at 7:12 PM, Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com<mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Larry, Very briefly in-line. On Jul 21, 2016 10:04 PM, "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <kree...@cisco.com<mailto:kree...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Hi Matthew, > > See my responses inline below. > > Thanks, Larry > > > > On 7/21/16, 7:56 AM, "nvo3 on behalf of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" > <nvo3-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of > matthew.bo...@nokia.com<mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>> wrote: > > >WG > > > >There was a discussion in the NVO3 WG meeting in Berlin following strong > >advice from our Area Director that we need to come to a consensus on > >converging on a common encapsulation. Two sets of questions were asked: > >(1) Should the WG move forward with one standards track encap? > >(2) For a given encap, do you have significant technical objections? > > > >This email relates to the second of these questions. Please refer to the > >separate email titled ³Consensus call on moving forward with single > >encap² for discussion related to point (1). > > I am sorry I missed the meeting. Was the room polled for the option to > move forward with more than one encap? I am interested in knowing the > response to that question since on the list, that option appeared to have > much more traction. If the room was not polled for that option or for a > choice between the options discussed on the list, then we have > incomplete/misleading results for how to move forward. Yes, of course the question was asked. There was, as I recall, almost no one in favor. Thank you for the summary of the meeting for those of us who weren't there. Interestingly, we seem to have a different trend on the mailing list: option 1 appears to garner significant support.
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list nvo3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
