Joe, Inline with my comments as individual.
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > We did that for VXLAN, didn't we? Why would it help by adding more encap types with deficiencies? > - 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 > That is one of the push AD and chairs were trying to do, vis-a-vis, design team. -sam > > Joe >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
