On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Sam Aldrin <[email protected]> wrote: > Anoop, > > 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? > > Backward compatibility, extensibility, security, etc., issues are very > important and the degree vary depending on whom you ask, for ex: operator to > vendor, software to hardware. That is whole new discussion and beyond this > thread, but those are the reasons for not reaching rough consensus. (Ref: > mailing list and summary) > > I personally do not think WG should just *stamp RFC for drafts because of > business reasons. >
+1 Behcet > -sam > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Sam, >> >> My lack of interest in a new encap is because I think it's too late to >> converge them. At this point, there are business issues (as opposed to >> technical ones) that would limit the effectiveness of a new encap. At best >> it's a no-op, at worst it creates even more confusion in the market while >> the other encaps continue with their deployment. >> >> The best that the IETF can do is at this point is to document these and >> make sure the encaps are not breaking something else. >> >> IMO, none of the objections raised are showstoppers. Any encap can be >> modified to do anything we want it to do, with the exception of backwards >> compatibility. The need, efficacy, and the price of backwards compatibility >> can be argued, so that advantage is not a slam dunk either. >> >> Anoop >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Sam Aldrin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Anoop, >>> >>> <WG chair hat off> >>> Couple of questions, if I may ask >>> 1. How do you plan to address technical objections raised? >>> 2. Not interested because it is too late and would rather live with any >>> deficiencies in the DP proposals? >>> </WG chair hat off> >>> >>> -sam >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, no rough consensus emerged from the list discussion. >>>>> >>>>> The chairs and our AD have also been trying to form a design team to >>>>> take forward the encapsulation discussion and see if there is potential to >>>>> design a common encapsulation. However, there has been insufficient >>>>> interest >>>>> in this initiative. We would like to hear opinions and confirmation or >>>>> disagreement on interest in creating a DP encapsulation that addresses the >>>>> various technical concerns. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have little interest in yet another encap. >>>> >>>> Anoop >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> nvo3 mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
