I agree However I would still like to see Tom's concerns addressed
"I don't believe that the technical objections for Geneve raised after the Berlin meeting and elsewhere have been adequately addressed. In particular, I don't believe that the extensibility mechanism defined in the draft has been shown to be viable or deployable." > On Apr 5, 2017, at 3:00 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) > <[email protected]> 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 21st 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
