Re: [armd] 83rd IETF ARMD minutes

Benson Schliesser <bschlies@cisco.com> Fri, 27 April 2012 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <bschlies@cisco.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 729CA21F86B2 for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TP6g19y4QuT6 for <armd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568C621F86B1 for <armd@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bschlies@cisco.com; l=28583; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1335568771; x=1336778371; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=fWtyJPr698TT/64+vjQ0DDsI3GWOYmSe9EiaG66xA6A=; b=TaVJ2EARn+wTS3wqb6t7akOwIJKP8XDoyA/QgHbR/Tj7kVy98xKTAq1t CaN4lWU8vGbeHY1IjIKM+YJJ9t+VvO7QShvfmVkcAcZXwGioztI3UIZNj Ab9uwDwLIv4x3nIh4Vb7IQideOlWgq1D8lb0s2LcuHN40Q53CwJvngR7n 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAFYom0+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABEgkavRYEHggkBAQEDARIBWwsFCws4AQ1XIhIHh2YEDJsKn3aLAoU4YwSIY4JkijaGYId3gWmDCIE0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.75,493,1330905600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="42571542"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2012 23:19:30 +0000
Received: from dhcp-171-71-147-193.cisco.com (dhcp-171-71-147-193.cisco.com [171.71.147.193]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3RNJUg3024063; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:19:30 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-45-779285123"
From: Benson Schliesser <bschlies@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E66056@dfweml505-mbx>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:19:30 -0700
Message-Id: <8E448648-58C1-45D1-8D57-48411ED5B365@cisco.com>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F632E66056@dfweml505-mbx>
To: armd@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [armd] 83rd IETF ARMD minutes
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:19:32 -0000

Thanks to Bert and Linda for the notes. I've taken the liberty of cleaning up the format, editing a few minor bits, and uploading the result to http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-armd.txt for your review.

Please respond to the chairs and/or mailing list with any corrections by 15-May-2012.

Cheers,
-Benson


On Apr 27, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:

> Thanks to Bert Wijnen for taking  notes during 83rd IETF ARMD session. Here is the minutes of the based on their notes. Please let us know if anything being missing from the minutes.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Linda & Benson
>  
> Time: 15:10pm ~16:10pm March 28, 2012
> Chair: Linda Dunbar, Benson Schliesser
> Chairs presented Note Well
>  
> Milestones by Benson
> The current deliverables run till Mar 2012.
> Two items were removed because not enough interest (the 2 Surveys). They are considered done (removed from charter).
> Problem statement went through last call, but no comments. Chairs assume consensus unless anyone objects.
> Thomas (author) objects and thinks we need at least 5 people to say YES I read it and support it.
>  
> AD (Ron) agrees. How many have read the current version? one of the co-authors, and a few hands raised.
>  
> But no-one on the lists said that they did. So need to ask WG mailing list.
>  
> Thomas suggests nasty approach to ask people to commit to review. AD will become nastier if he does not see interest.
>  
>  Chair: who will review in 2 weeks? More than 5 committed.
>  
>    ARP/ND statistics draft. Need feed-back
>    So shall we drop it?
>    Unless someone objects strongly we will drop it.
>    Will confirm at mailing list
>  
>    Recommendations draft (milestone Mar 2012)
>    Will be presented
>    GAP Analysis draft (milestone for MAr 2012)
>    Someone MUST step up though.
>  
> Presentation by Linda
>    BCP for ARP/ND Scaling (SEE SLIDES)
>    - SCENARIO 1
>    - SCENARIO 2
>    - Static Address Mapping
>    - DNS Based Solution
>    - ARP/ND Proxy Approaches
>    - Overlay Network
>  
> AD: Is the document BCP or Informational
>      AD thinks Informational is the better choice
>      So say David Black
>      So say Igor
>      Thomas agrees too
>      Maybe we should just say "Current Practices".
>      So do not use BCP acronym (or full) in the doc.
>  
> WG chair: says charter states we must do a "recommendation".
>     Does that not mean we need to do BCP?
>     AD: NO
> Thomas: Be practical and don’t get hung up on process WG chair: what does the WG want to do
>  
> AD: SHOULD and MUST or should and must
>  
> WG chair: I am not hearing feedback
> Linda: Is it more common to have a BCP or just a recommendation? Thomas suggests: Make sure at least 5 people have read it and think it should be a BCP (actually it is not a WG draft yet).
> WG Chair: So we need to do some more work on this
> Thomas: put this WG out of its misery
>     Get some people to commit and blame them if they do not deliver
>     We must move quicker to be relevant
> Anoop(spelling?) : I think this is (still) an interesting problem WG chair agrees. Just that the scope of the WG is limited to “problem” only. There is not much people can do.
>  BUT we must do something or shut down.
>  
>  
>  
> Benson: So this was the only item on agenda. Those who raised their hands, please come to me so I can write down your name
>  
> AD: The Gap Analysis and statistics doc have no author yet or have not shown energy. Shall we just not do them and work on the items we do have activity on?
>  
> Chair: asks: shall we do that?
> Thomas: The GROUP does not seem to have the energy
>          SO stop the docs that do not get the energy.
>          Otherwise they may get referenced while they do not really have any standing
>  
> Chair: So we not only need authors, but we need better content too
> Thomas: Seems we are not getting that content
> Chair: Does anyone disagree?
> Igor: I thought that we last time already agreed to kill this item.
> Chair: So we're going nowhere with this
> Thomas: The document as it is is based on simulation and not on real
>          operational workload
> Igor agrees. As I said I thought we decided to kill it
> AD: Does anyone disagree with Thomas and Igor?
> No one disagrees
> Chair: so we do not do statistics and Gap analysis.
> So we have the "NOT BCP document" and the Problem statement So 10 have decided to review the Problem statement since very few read the document...
> AD suggests: AD will sponsor the Problem statement and not-BCP document Then shutdown the WG after this IETF. And all thanks for the good work
> Thomas: The WG (GROUP) OWES it to the authors to review these 2 documents so they can get published.
> WG chair: SO pls still come forward and give me your name.
>  
>  
> ANY last comments
> D channles xxxx
> Lots of the work we talked about shows up in NVO3, so that is the place to redirect the energy to.
>  
> Adjourned.
>