Re: [armd] I-D Action: draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement-04.txt

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Mon, 22 October 2012 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: armd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: armd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6B321F88EE for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.303
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.303 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.296, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w2Y2L0Ori5+9 for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com (e9.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951A921F88E9 for <armd@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from /spool/local by e9.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <armd@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:13:26 -0400
Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.167) by e9.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.109) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:13:26 -0400
Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (d01relay07.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.147]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C876E803C for <armd@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q9MLDO9b64159812 for <armd@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:13:24 -0400
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q9MLDOcC020708 for <armd@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:13:24 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-211-49.mts.ibm.com [9.65.211.49]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q9MLDNhA020672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <armd@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:13:23 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id q9MLDMVW013785 for <armd@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:13:22 -0400
Message-Id: <201210222113.q9MLDMVW013785@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: armd@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <20121022210748.14824.89084.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20121022210748.14824.89084.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Comments: In-reply-to internet-drafts@ietf.org message dated "Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:07:48 -0700."
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:13:22 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12102221-7182-0000-0000-000002E8C9D0
Subject: Re: [armd] I-D Action: draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement-04.txt
X-BeenThere: armd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues associated with large amount of virtual machines being introduced in data centers and virtual hosts introduced by Cloud Computing." <armd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/armd>, <mailto:armd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/armd>
List-Post: <mailto:armd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:armd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/armd>, <mailto:armd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:13:28 -0000

Hi.

This version incorporates a number of editorial changes stemming from
the IESG reviews and reviews from Joel Halpurn and Manav Bhatia.  It
should clear the one IESG DISCUSS on the document.

Most of the changes have been discussed publicly (i.e, via cc's to
this list). I don't think any of them should be controversial.

At this point, I believe this document is done, and I believe it can
be sent to the RFC editor.

Indeed, I think this WG is finally done!

Thanks everyone for your help!

Thomas