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 <email@example.com>
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.
Matthew and Sam
nvo3 mailing list