"don't care" I'm concerned about the large number of reserved fields and insufficient discussion about fragmentation (notably source fragmentation).
Both issues can be addressed if the doc moves forward. However, because I saw insufficient rationale for any decision, I'm not prepared to support or block the approach of picking one to move forward. Joe On 4/5/2017 3:00 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote: > > WG, > > > > During the Thursday NVO3 meeting in Chicago, we tested the sense of > the room to see if there was consensus with the encapsulation design > team recommendation to move forward with draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve as the > standards track encapsulation for NVO3. There was consensus to do so. > > > > We would now like to confirm this on the list. > > > > Do you agree with the recommendation of the encapsulation design team > to move forward with draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve as the standards track > encapsulation for NVO3? > > > > If so please reply with “I agree” > > > > If you do not agree, please reply with “I do not agree”. Please also > state your reasons for not agreeing. > > > > > > As we have stated before, this process does not prevent the other > encapsulations being published as informational or experimental after > publication has been requested for the selected standards track > encapsulation draft, if there is agreement to do so in the WG. > > > > This consensus call will end on Friday 21^st April 2017. > > > > Regards > > > > Matthew > > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
