Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

2016-07-29 Thread Jesse Gross
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > Anyway, I suppose we can agree that extensibility is a strong > requirement, but we'll have to agree to disagree on what form > extensibility should take and how much an encapsulation protocol > should allow! Yes, I think

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

2016-07-29 Thread Tom Herbert
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> On Jul 29, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >>> The only thing that I can say is that over the past several years since the >>> protocol was defined our experience with this tradeoff has

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

2016-07-29 Thread Jesse Gross
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > >> The only thing that I can say is that over the past several years since the >> protocol was defined our experience with this tradeoff has been pretty good. >> Both the number of uses of Geneve and implementations

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

2016-07-29 Thread Tom Herbert
> The only thing that I can say is that over the past several years since the > protocol was defined our experience with this tradeoff has been pretty good. > Both the number of uses of Geneve and implementations have increased and as > time has gone on, the uses have take more advantage of the

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

2016-07-29 Thread Jesse Gross
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: >> >>> On Jul 29, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >>> As a hypothetical question, how would you handle a

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

2016-07-29 Thread Tom Herbert
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> On Jul 29, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >>> As a hypothetical question, how would you handle a situation where the >>> security token you have defined for GUE is shown to be broken and

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

2016-07-29 Thread Jesse Gross
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > >> As a hypothetical question, how would you handle a situation where the >> security token you have defined for GUE is shown to be broken and needs to >> be replaced with a new option? I’m sure that in that case, you

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

2016-07-29 Thread Tom Herbert
> As a hypothetical question, how would you handle a situation where the > security token you have defined for GUE is shown to be broken and needs to be > replaced with a new option? I’m sure that in that case, you would feel the > need to react immediately. It seems like the two choices would

Re: [nvo3] GUE extensibility (was Re: Consensus call on encap proposals)

2016-07-29 Thread Jesse Gross
> On Jul 25, 2016, at 7:49 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > >> I object to GUE due to its inability to have a significant number of >> extensions in a regular and interoperable way. The base flags structure is >> limited (note 7 of 16 flags have already been used before the