Hi Lucy, On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Lucy yong <[email protected]> wrote:
> *I were in NVO3 meeting room and surprised in seeing that option 2 was > selected somehow (although mailing list is in favor of option 1). The > question asked in the room is for supporting option 2 only and option 1 > were not mentioned at all, which was like a done deal. The rest questions > were to support which encap. as single NVO3 encap to work on. I don’t think > that is proper to make a decision after waiting for three years and many > people in this community were not in the room. In fact, the responses in > the room were very light because it came a shock.* > > If it came as a shock that we are having this hard conversation in person, I am sorry. Clearly, the discussion on the mailing list started in advance of the meeting and I was looking forward to an animated discussion of the pros and cons of different options. I do view Option 1 - publish all three as Informational - as essentially indicating that the WG can't come to consensus on a single encapsulation. I haven't even seen any efforts to consolidate down to two. The questions around consensus were asked in the room and have been repeated on this list. The IETF determines consensus on the mailing list and all decisions are confirmed there. I am struggling to understand the difference in response in the room versus the mailing list, but it is quite clear how and where consensus is determined - and that calling it is up to the WG Chairs. What I am hearing loud and clear on the list in this thread is a general feeling that NVO3 should just give up and document what has been done. If that is not the intended message, please clarify. Regards, Alia > > > *Lucy* > > > > *From:* nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jesse Gross > *Sent:* Monday, July 25, 2016 10:52 AM > *To:* Alia Atlas > *Cc:* Matthew Bocci; Larry Kreeger (kreeger); [email protected]; Paul Quinn > (paulq) > *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals > > > > > > On Jul 25, 2016, at 7:38 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Paul Quinn (paulq) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Alia, > > > > > > On Jul 21, 2016, at 7:12 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Larry, > > Very briefly in-line. > > On Jul 21, 2016 10:04 PM, "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email protected]> > 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)" > > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 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 was in the room and didn't speak up on this point (though I did express > my support of option #1 previously on the mailing list). > > > > The way the question was asked was pretty abstract and therefore hard to > argue against. Asking "Who is in favor of a single encap?" is somewhat the > equivalent of saying "Who would like to eat ice cream?". In both cases, > it's something that essentially everyone likes but probably comes with some > tradeoffs. In the case of encapsulations, I think everyone would be fine if > their preferred choice was selected. However, in the absence of that > happening and without specifically linking what you would have to give up, > the question is fairly meaningless. > > > > When it comes to extensibility, I think the design space is pretty well > explored at this point. I don't really see that it is likely that a new > compromise choice emerges that will significantly change the objections > that have been raised to the existing protocols. To me, extensibility is a > core need-to-have component. As a result, while it would be nice to have a > single encapsulation format, if that format did not include extensibility > it would not be useful to me. Without it, it would not be possible to build > the software that I/VMware am trying to deliver and therefore the choice to > use something else would be an easy one. > > > > I believe that others are in a similar position but opposite with regards > to technical choices. The net result is that there are almost certain to be > multiple formats in the wild regardless of what is decided here. Yes, that > means letting the market decide rather than the IETF. I honestly don't > necessarily see that as a negative since it means that it will be based on > experience rather than theoretical arguments. I don't even think that it > will cause more confusion or set back the industry given that timescales of > ~5 years are being talked about for a new compromise encap if that were to > come to be. >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
