IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-nvo3-dhc-vxlan-multicast-00.txt

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 20 February 2014 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9BE51A0235 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:08:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lL6WHNfqD9bC for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:08:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC831A0232 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7111B82A3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D325F190052; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:07:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:07:55 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcfL9aO4GXNN=g+vioNWvbbQM2Y-GLRf3qZ1cWS3YLpW+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:07:53 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <4A06ECB4-7F41-469A-915E-280C25FE7530@nominum.com>
References: <20140214173114.23812.70162.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC8QAcfGgayrUkXZp4hNdGeZpfv3hazpg4n=2kx8qUHqObhUAg@mail.gmail.com> <2D6D46E6-15C5-4465-843B-3FECA8DC729D@nominum.com> <CAC8QAcfL9aO4GXNN=g+vioNWvbbQM2Y-GLRf3qZ1cWS3YLpW+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<sarikaya@ieee.org>" <sarikaya@ieee.org>, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/oWOKa8u_B0_actER3acfbplc33M
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Dhc Chairs <dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-nvo3-dhc-vxlan-multicast-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:08:03 -0000

My concern is that I got the impression that the addresses this document provides need to be tracked by the server, that is that they are stateful.   I'm not sure that's the case—it just looked that way to me.

As for whether this should get a presentation in the DHC working group, that is of course up to the chairs, but given that this is work needed by another working group, it would be nice if the working group chairs for nvo3 were to tell the working group chairs of dhc that they are seriously looking to adopt this document as a working group item and want the DHC working group's advice.   Otherwise, what's the point?   I certainly wouldn't support advancing this document in the DHC working group without such a request, and then only if this is in fact a stateful option.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email