Re: [nvo3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt> (Framework for DC Network Virtualization) to Informational RFC

Thomas Narten <> Mon, 02 June 2014 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5AA11A02AA for <>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SV2qAcYoC7s2 for <>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5C941A0024 for <>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from /spool/local by with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <> from <>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:36:21 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:36:19 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E4E38C8027; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:36:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s52HaIDf8389050; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:36:18 GMT
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s52HaHwH005434; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:36:17 -0400
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id s52HaGwB005384 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:36:17 -0400
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id s52HaBeG021925; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:36:15 -0400
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 13:36:11 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Thomas Narten <>
To: Linda Dunbar <>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt> (Framework for DC Network Virtualization) to Informational RFC
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/23.1 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 14060217-5806-0000-0000-00002507BD34
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:36:29 -0000

I've followed the discussion on this thread and want to  go back to
something folk may have forgotten.

More than a year ago, the WG made a considered and conscious decision
to "ship" the framework documemnt more or less "as is" and start work
on a followup architecure document. It was known and expected that the
architecture document would become the focus of work moving forward
and that substantive additions/changes would go there. Even if it
meant the framework document would be less complete.

Sadly, it has been more than a year since that decision was made, yet
the framework document appears stalled and unable to get
published. I'll note that the problem statement document to which the
framework is a companion, has been languishing in the RFC editor queue
for almost a year now, blocked on a normative reference to the
definitions in the framework document.

FWIW, I think the framework is good enough to publish more-or-less as
is. Or more to the point, there just isn't energy to make significant
changes to the document given that the focus of the WG has long since
moved to the architecture document.
If folk have substantive issues with the framework, I'd strongly
suggest first looking at the architecture
(draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-01.txt) and seeing whether their concern exists
there, and of so, whether the archictecture document would be a better
place to address the concern.