Hi Alia, Ideally I would rather not go there at all as expressed in the first part of Fabio's note. Assuming we must go there, having a section that documents why the WG thought we needed a new one would be good enough for me.
Anoop On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Anoop, > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Alia, >> >> I think it will provide an official reference which will be helpful since >> all the encaps will be around a long time and we can point people to that >> document when we are asked the question "why did they develop yet another >> encap?". >> > > So what you are asking for is a section in the overall draft that talks > about the motivations and improvements? > There's a trade-off of speed and getting a solution done versus doing > process work for a theoretical future that won't happen if we don't get the > technical work finished. > > Regards, > Alia > > > >> Thanks, >> Anoop >> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Anoop & Fabiio, >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Agree with Fabio (including the suggestion for an interim deliverable >>>> on shortcomings). If the WG doesn't agree on the shortcomings, chances are >>>> they may not like the 4th encap. >>>> >>> >>> What do you expect to be different from the summary of technical >>> objections that came out of the last discussion? Are you looking for more >>> detail? >>> >>> I didn't see disagreement about the accuracy of the technical objections. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alia >>> >>> >>>> Anoop >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree with Fabio. >>>>> >>>>> Choosing a single encapsulation that is not 1 of the 3, creates a 4th >>>>> one that no one wants. >>>>> >>>>> And guess what, you make all 3 authors unhappy where none of them will >>>>> endorse (or implement) the 4th one. >>>>> >>>>> Dino >>>>> >>>>> > On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Fabio Maino <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > (for full disclosure I'm one of the authors of VXLAN-GPE) >>>>> > >>>>> > Matt, Sam, Alia, >>>>> > I've expressed multiple times and in multiple venues my adversity >>>>> (and the motivations) to set this group to design yet another >>>>> encapsulation. I won't repeat it here once again, but I want to re-assert >>>>> that it's still were I stand. >>>>> > >>>>> > I've seen quite a few people in the mailing list here expressing >>>>> similar concerns, but I see that it has not changed the opinion of the >>>>> chairs and the AD on what they believe is the best way to move forward. >>>>> > >>>>> > That said, here are my comments to the charter. >>>>> > >>>>> > I think the design team first goal should be to clearly articulate >>>>> the shortcomings of the current encapsulations proposed to the WG. This >>>>> should be the very first deliverable of the design team. The actual design >>>>> work should start only once the WG has reached consensus on that document. >>>>> Especially considering that some of the encapsulations proposed are being >>>>> deployed, I think articulating the shortcomings will help to make the best >>>>> choice in term of (1) selecting which one will need to be extended, and >>>>> (2) >>>>> designing the actual extensions. >>>>> > >>>>> > Below are my proposals on how to modify the wording of the charter. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On 10/20/16 1:37 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote: >>>>> >> WG, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We would like to give you an update on the process in the WG for >>>>> progressing the issue of a data plane encapsulation. The chairs and Alia >>>>> believe that the best way forward is to progress a single encapsulation >>>>> format that addresses the technical concerns raised on the list in the >>>>> recent discussions. This would address the clear overall consensus of the >>>>> Berlin meeting and list for a single encapsulation. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The strategy should be to take one of the three existing >>>>> encapsulations and enhance it to address these concerns. This would become >>>>> the standards track output of the WG. The existing three drafts (GENEVE, >>>>> GUE and VXLAN-GPE) should be forwarded to the IESG as informational after >>>>> the standards track draft specifying the single encapsulation. This >>>>> provides an opportunity for those encapsulations to be documented and >>>>> maintained. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The single encapsulation should be viewed as one that the WG and >>>>> industry can converge around for the future. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We have created a design team to progress work on a single >>>>> encapsulation that can form the basis or work going forward. The design >>>>> team members are: Michael Schmidt, Uri Elzur, Ilango Ganga, Erik Nordmark, >>>>> Rajeev Manur, Prankaj Garg. Many thanks to these individuals for their >>>>> help. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Please see below for a draft charter for the design team. Please >>>>> review the charter and send comments to the list by 2nd November 2016. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Regards, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Matthew and Sam >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ==== >>>>> >> NVO3 Encapsulation Design team 2016 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Problem Statement >>>>> >> The NVO3 WG charter states that it may produce requirements for >>>>> network virtualization data planes based on encapsulation of virtual >>>>> network traffic over an IP-based underlay data plane. Such requirements >>>>> should consider OAM and security. Based on these requirements the WG will >>>>> select, extend, and/or develop one or more data plane encapsulation >>>>> format(s). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> This has led to drafts describing three encapsulations being >>>>> adopted by the working group: >>>>> >> - draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-03 >>>>> >> - draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-04 >>>>> >> - draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-02 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Discussion on the list and in face-to-face meetings has identified >>>>> a number of technical problems with each of these encapsulations. >>>>> Furthermore, there was clear consensus at the IETF meeting in Berlin that >>>>> it is undesirable for the working group to progress more than one data >>>>> plane encapsulation. Although consensus could not be reached on the list, >>>>> the overall consensus was for a single encapsulation (RFC2418, Section >>>>> 3.3). Nonetheless there has been resistance to converging on a single >>>>> encapsulation format, although doing so would provide the best benefit to >>>>> the industry. >>>>> > >>>>> > The portion of the last sentence that follows the comma ("although >>>>> doing so would provide the best benefit to the industry") doesn't seem to >>>>> be adding anything to the charter. I'd suggest it could be removed. >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Design Team Goals >>>>> > The design team should clearly articulate in a draft which are the >>>>> shortcomings of the proposed encapsulations, and where they fall short in >>>>> addressing the NVO3 architectural requirements. >>>>> > >>>>> > Once the 'shortcomings' draft has reached consensus of the WG, >>>>> >> The design team should take one of the proposed encapsulations and >>>>> enhance it to address the technical concerns. >>>>> >> Backwards compatibility with the chosen encapsulation and the >>>>> simple evolution of deployed networks as well as applicability to all >>>>> locations in the NVO3 architecture >>>>> > , together with the design goals articulated in the 'shortcoming' >>>>> draft, >>>>> > >>>>> >> are goals. The DT should specifically avoid a design that is >>>>> burdensome on hardware implementations, but should allow future >>>>> extensibility. The chosen design should also operate well with ICMP and in >>>>> ECMP environments. If further extensibility is required, then it should be >>>>> done in such a manner that it does not require the consent of an entity >>>>> outside of the IETF. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Timeline >>>>> >> The design team should >>>>> > first produce the 'shortcomings' draft, get it adopted by the WG, >>>>> and then >>>>> > >>>>> >> produce a first draft describing the proposal by end of January >>>>> 2017. Target adoption by the WG by March 2017 IETF. >>>>> >> >>>>> > (those two dates may need to be adjusted accordingly) >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Thanks, >>>>> > Fabio >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> nvo3 mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
