On 7/25/16 7:38 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Paul Quinn (paulq) <pa...@cisco.com
<mailto:pa...@cisco.com>> wrote:
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.
I am well aware and curious about why. It may be that in person, there
were more folks peripherally involved who just want the Standards
process to work. That doesn't really explain why none of the people
expressing opinions on the mailing list - whom I know were in the room
in some cases - didn't feel comfortable raising their hands or
publicly expressing their opinion.
I couldn't make the meeting (my apologies), otherwise I would have
certainly stood up for option 1, as I did in the mailing list.
Fabio
I am considering what to do about this discrepancy and how to proceed
as we discuss.
Regards,
Alia
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
