I think the draft is OK but I’ve got a few comments below:

Section 1: Why are these the  use cases considered?   I think a better 
justification of why these use cases are considered representative or even 
significant will enhance the draft.

Section 3.1: Perhaps add a better definition of vGW

Section 4: Is this statement 100% accurate: "Operators no longer need to worry 
about the constraints of the DC physical network configuration when creating 
VMs and configuring a virtual network."?

Section 4.1: This section is potentially very interesting and perhaps should be 
fleshed out some more; some of the issues arising from interworking between 
different technologies are interesting and perhaps worthy of further 
discussion.  However, there are some suggestions that some DCs are highly 
homogenised in terms of deployed hardware and technology so perhaps also 
mention this possibility?

Section 4:3: "DC Provider operators"? In fact, draft uses both "DC provider" or 
"DC operator" throughout.  Is there a difference?  If so, perhaps state the 
difference.  If not, perhaps pick one and use it consistently in the draft?


From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:14 AM
To: NVO3 <nvo3@ietf.org>
Subject: [nvo3] WG last call for draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-09

This email begins a two week working group last call for 

Please review the draft and post any comments to the NVO3 working group list.

If you have read the latest version of the draft but have no comments and 
believe it is ready for publication as an Informational RFC, please also 
indicate so to the WG email list.

This working group last call will close on Tuesday 20th September 2016.

Best regards

Matthew and Sam
nvo3 mailing list

Reply via email to