> Absolutely! I heard quite clearly at the last IETF that there is general > desire for NVO3 to pick a single encapsulation. While the sentiments on the > list have been more strongly for just publishing everything and assuming > complexity can be handled later, that comes from much less of the WG than the > desire for a single encapsulation.
Let’s try to reach concensus. Could we agree on one of these 3 options: (1) Publish all 3 encapsulations as Informational RFCs. This makes the working group look indecisive but at least the vendors can go to market with what they choose with some acknowledgement from IETF. (2) Pick one encapsulation to be Experimental RFC and the other two Information RFCs. This makes the working group look somewhat decisive but at least allows the vendors to go to market with varying degrees of acknowledgment from IETF. (3) Close the working group and keep drafts published with current status. Let the solutions working groups work on the control-plane. Because if the working group cannot decide on a simple encapsulation format, there is no way there will be conclusiveness on a control-plane. This is the only way to get some rough concensus to get out of this stalemate. I vote for (1). Dino P.S. A gateway approach is a horrible idea. You will get bad solutions (suboptimal routing) for customers because a standards group couldn’t decide? This doesn’t encourage and promote interoperability and of course pushes the IETF more so into irrelevancy. _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
