Hi,
I have several concerns with this document.
There hasn't been a single response to the WG LC, which by the way
happened more than two years ago and the draft has undergone 13
revisions since then.
This document has an evident formatting issue (text width, section
titles, Status of This Memo, references, ...), as well as a reasonable
number of typos / unclear sentences making it quite hard to understand.
It apparently aims at addressing Virtual Machine Mobility, but in fact
seems to only cover IP address preservation during such type of event.
This must be clarified.
It is not clear to me what is specific to NVO3 networks in this document.
This document is said to describe solutions *commonly* used in data
centers. Also, it primarily only describes what needs to be done but not
how.
This makes me wonder what benefit does it bring to the community and to
operators of data centers.
This document refers to other specifications which themselves do not
provide the missing pieces e.g., RFC7666 does not describe how to
transfer VM states; RFC8014 is not a specification for an NVE-to-NVA
protocol.
How section 7 relates to the rest of the document is unclear. It seems
to restate some elements described in 4.2 and 4.3 but not all.
Section 8 and 9 seem to be out of the scope of this document.
In its current state the document is not ready for review by the IESG
and I'm returning it to the WG. I encourage the WG to evaluate the
benefit of publishing this as an RFC, to discuss whether this should be
the product of NVO3 and would an alternate publication stream be more
appropriate. In any case this document needs more work.
-m
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
