IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt> (An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)) to Informational RFC

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Tue, 23 August 2016 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCED12D16D; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Dm1g9qmic5hm; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22d.google.com (mail-qk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6643812D140; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id t7so105878300qkh.1; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uVylvNR2CW081pSw44ivjQKSI1YyfDYb/lAy4E/yIJk=; b=elHL+UvmCszOBxGGcq7jMVJeEC3q/sbUU4XKVEozGJDPBlCOHEhDMRj47HC5vOFP8d 7L3hxC64cGqr1AIfcg+aR12JZcWGP8Z4zJTUmFmZYI/yDpAADR90rfDAw4OAQi3qYOUb DiVjqK/3/nPV6iS+wm32fo8zhHfp7+iQsHhdKR3Z4/kDlxlzy32mVX7NLznBqhAr0u5W 1V9XQMHyt1VdWeQoqXHchrnUxofSAb8KNXlLEbRXI3EdVxSnJg8/ZlO+PJEEOhZSWq5p Ymzz5tM6BKgqhLKiOSaS+PRHNeYuKK61EndPZ0ZkhiOZsw+WvNZn6aCNeSfLidV9FD8B 3peg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uVylvNR2CW081pSw44ivjQKSI1YyfDYb/lAy4E/yIJk=; b=gQIFqmWXIs2DaQPUvRxP7F7v2bN15MYoKKeLFi/jzfmIIVQJS8dDhEud3yRRMzf3W3 500pjdxb9+/d9P+e/Fn+Kb2Op9ueakui/jNtqlLEhYTXJx2jymXy1EKzXeLK6Kgaeg/f JlTWjmfutbu8kO5/D4OxAWOHRrEU8A2vTmI3Es/eax5MWehDCGHXyRLWlqdC8tr/KKUO upSuymkYiscxGIO96NsJgQXe3/w+rL3A66ljUSNPP24BZ24mn45OB8x2wbGKrQTCNCZv DPdCFdDXkYifYF/b0Gjot4XB60YoYhmjgOQczA7aJHn7IAqkP80jzsRC+fD0asqiF+EG pacA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMws2Lq0YmpBL/mnE5O169/YPCLCRZIBWY5AG9N6qs5U3s7d5YKne7mAELAM/dKaSJ8nSctSh1s7mvm3Q==
X-Received: by 10.55.163.4 with SMTP id m4mr30015445qke.110.1471958406606; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.81.137 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F65D1CF@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
References: <20160729230612.26953.29914.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADnDZ8_L2YBO7TB48ZpO5RPhsA=HmvwrC8CnqH8qEg8y4xg-cg@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F646DB4@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CADnDZ88p6sy0a48L-YJV3RSBo7q8+7W2eQxO4EqyOPVwZCn51w@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F65D1CF@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:20:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89vX+dCc1zn7yQzPY8_PskNVYgexM4dbk3=vRnZzYiVLw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt> (An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)) to Informational RFC
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07702af33516053abd05c9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NqI7XfNBvQ1rDz7ekCjnkIKcDWw>
Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:20:09 -0000

Hi David,

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:

>
>
> > > David> Virtual DCs are not part of the NVO3 architecture.
>
>
>
> > but vDC was defined in the document
>
>
>
> No it wasn’t - neither the “vDC” acronym nor its “virtual DC” expansion
> appear in the NVO3 architecture draft.
>
>
in the section 2 it is clear:
section 2 draft> This document uses the same terminology as

[RFC7365].

IMHO, it means that this draft has same terminology included in the draft
as rfc7365 (i.e, virtual DC is defined in RFC7365). It is used in many
drafts in IETF that authors don't like to repeat such similar RFC with
similar approach (even in scientific articles it is great practice to
reference related work).

AB>  the authors can mention the different terminology or that virtual DC
is not included in the architecture, but is there a reason why we should
not add an information that points to this. For me as we can have a VLAN
defined on a LAN, then we can have vDC on a DC.

Thanks for your replies,

Best Regards

AB

>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email