Hello Matthew and nvo3 experts, > Please respond to this email on the NVO3 list by 29th July 2016:
okay, 1 day late (sorry): > - 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. no. I prefer instead the 3 encapsulations are well described in 3 documents, including their strength and potentially not-so-strong aspects. These 3 documents could be all "informal" or all "standard" IMHO. There is in my opinion no point in making the decision for one encapsulation. Supporting multiple encapsulation methods in the control plane is already happening. If the market finally decides for one encapsulation method - so be it. But this is not for IETF to decide. Nor do I see any consent - the 3 groups see an advantage in their encapsulation for their particular architecture and no simple one-fits-all compromise exists. My conclusion is we have 3 valid encapsulations. Save the essence of the discussions, so future implementors can pick the right choice. Regards, Marc _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
