Re: [dc] Work items for this group

LuYuan, 

I said that " .. might not need to be discussed again at the DC Interim meeting. But they are very good documents in describing Data Center general architecture and address resolution issues in data centers, which people on this mail list should be interested in"

Having said this, if this DC Interim meeting is intended for IETF across area discussion on Data Center networking, it might worth the time to bring up all data center related work in various IETF WGs. For example, the Mobile IP technologies which allow mobile devices to move anywhere can be valuable to data center network to allow VMs to be placed anywhere.

I assume it is up to ADs to decide what to be discussed at this DC Interim meeting when there are too many contributions. 

Linda   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luyuan Fang (lufang) [mailto:lufang@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 1:43 PM
> To: Linda Dunbar; Thomas Narten; dc@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [dc] Work items for this group
> 
> This takes us back to the dc list scope discussion.
> 
> Regarding ARMD, I thought Benson commended before: "if one wishes to
> discuss ARMD issues, I suggest using the armd@ietf.org mailing list.
> But
> there is much that is out of ARMD's scope, which might be more
> appropriate for discussion on dc@ietf.org instead."
> 
> Are you suggesting a different approach? Or these new ARMD drafts are
> out of scope of ARMD?
> Same goes with the TRILL drafts...
> 
> If the scope of the dc list is to cover every topic in ietf related to
> dc, regardless there is already WG or not, we have several more WGs to
> pull in, I think we will have scale and focus issues.
> 
> Luyuan
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Linda Dunbar
> > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 2:01 PM
> > To: Thomas Narten; dc@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [dc] Work items for this group
> >
> > Thomas,
> >
> > Thanks for starting the list.
> > There are several drafts in ARMD for Data Center. The first two
> drafts
> > have been discussed at the 82nd IETF meeting in Taipei, therefore
> might
> > not need to be discussed again at the DC Interim meeting. But they
> are
> > very good documents in describing Data Center general architecture
> and
> > address resolution issues in data centers, which people on this mail
> > list should be interested in.
> >
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-armd-problem-statement/
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-karir-armd-datacenter-
> reference-
> > arch/
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-karir-armd-statistics/
> >
> > This draft hasn't been discussed yet due to scope issues.  Therefore,
> > they are suited for DC Interim meeting.
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shah-armd-arp-reduction/
> >
> > Here is another draft in ARMD, which is interesting.
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-so-armd-vdcs-ar/
> >
> >
> >
> > Here are a couple of drafts in TRILL targeted for the data center
> > environment:
> >
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-trill-directory-
> assisted-
> > edge/
> >
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-trill-directory-
> assisted-
> > encap/
> >
> > There will be an ARMD draft on BCP for ARP/ND Scaling for Large Data
> > Centers to be uploaded soon, which are relevant.
> >
> > Linda Dunbar
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Thomas Narten
> > > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 7:15 AM
> > > To: dc@ietf.org
> > > Subject: [dc] Work items for this group
> > >
> > > Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > So far it's been an impressively low traffic list for a cross
> area
> > > > intersection of interests gearing up to discuss documents at an
> > > interim.
> > >
> > > Fair point.
> > >
> > > And with that, I'd like to start with a summary of the potential
> work
> > > items that might be covered here. By "work items", I'd like to see
> a
> > > grouping of IDs/presentations into (potential) work areas. The goal
> > > would be to talk about each work area somewhat separately. If we
> > > aren't able to organize work into mostly self-contained areas (i.e.,
> > > WGs), we'll never get anywhere.
> > >
> > > So far, the ones I know of include:
> > >
> > > NVO3
> > >     draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-01.txt
> > > SDN
> > >     draft-nadeau-sdn-problem-statement-01.txt
> > >
> > >   Use Case/Examples:
> > >     draft-stiliadis-sdnp-framework-use-cases-01.txt
> > >     draft-pan-sdn-bod-problem-statement-and-use-case-01.txt
> > >     draft-pan-sdn-dc-problem-statement-and-use-cases-01.txt
> > >     draft-mcdysan-sdnp-cloudbursting-usecase-00.txt
> > >
> > >   Solutions/Approachs:
> > >     draft-nadeau-sdn-framework-01.txt
> > >     draft-marques-sdnp-flow-spec-00.txt
> > > VPN4DC
> > >
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fang-vpn4dc-problem-statement-00
> > >
> > >     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bitar-datacenter-vpn-
> > > applicability-01
> > >     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-so-vpn4dc-00
> > >     http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-so-vdcs-01
> > >
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dunbar-vpn4dc-problem-statement-
> > 00
> > >     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ko-dsi-problem-statement-00
> > >
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-l3vpn-vpn4dc-interconnect-00
> > >     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yong-vpn4dc-protocol-gap-
> > analysis-
> > > 00
> > >     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zeng-vpn4dc-example-solution-
> 00
> > >     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marques-l3vpn-end-system-02
> > >
> > > Are there others?
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dc mailing list
> > > dc@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc
> > _______________________________________________
> > dc mailing list
> > dc@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc