Hi, all,
On 10/5/2016 10:29 AM, Sam Aldrin wrote: > As I said in one my earlier emails, if new encap proposals are not > converging on resolving issues, why don't we just live with existing > encaps like VXLAN etc? Why would making these RFC'es is important by > standards body, when it is about business rather than technical ones? My concerns are as follows: - it seems fine to support multiple encaps, but it's not clear whether any of the existing encapsulation protocols CAN be "fixed" by OAM - IMO, the WG shouldn't waste time trying to fix this all I.e., I would suggest that: - any encaps that is desired and sufficiently useful should be supported BUT any deficiencies should be noted, rather than wasting time trying to "fix" them - any work on a new encaps needs to be preceded by a requirements doc that explains what is needed and why; the summary of issues with existing encaps protocols seems like a list of preferences, not strict requirements Joe _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
