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

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Wed, 24 August 2016 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.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 CD84912DCF3; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 05:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=emc.com header.b=TarlUvps; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=emc.com header.b=hLK8kiR5
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 hGMHR2CSqHb6; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 05:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa6.dell-outbound.iphmx.com (esa6.dell-outbound.iphmx.com [68.232.149.229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB77012DCEF; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 05:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=emc.com; i=@emc.com; q=dns/txt; s=jan2013; t=1472043474; x=1503579474; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=2Y/amPSxXI/hh2+tKk3t37ypzxn5l7kdR3mSUy7kEwM=; b=TarlUvpsidMw+w4tlFnr07+b30iQgh+ptTdc10WJ4yOXcbPtMEWdWF9u CpYmZt3WiuhmPy4ImaZq8thGmiD1calx112OnyQE/kqJ4/yAGZVLYLQhj 173vDDhMbvxf7ojL+Y08PiwlW2/S8M3a1WFg2iwHUvXsaGkxNnveIq3eI k=;
Received: from esa6.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com ([68.232.154.99]) by esa6.dell-outbound.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Aug 2016 07:57:54 -0500
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com ([128.221.224.79]) by esa6.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Aug 2016 18:57:53 +0600
Received: from maildlpprd56.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd56.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.160]) by mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u7OCvpc8015283 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:57:52 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com u7OCvpc8015283
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1472043473; bh=vmMfXdcve6i50JrjlwpzK1MqVPk=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=hLK8kiR5gU4mP4X4CQPjYyFI8wCajhpNavtx+erYKhQ21/ANjcYLQ5B64C3FSYcaY ThkDJ1gU1ZHp6HTTgww0njgV+bifmhaQAyBdrRse+uoKeiyOFz6Bg6lCfFL5+Yf+Br eQcJNWzCQmamURDV+Fl1Y5xcHBPdE08b/xYO1cN4=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd52.lss.emc.com u7OCvpc8015283
Received: from mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.19]) by maildlpprd56.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:56:58 -0400
Received: from MXHUB317.corp.emc.com (MXHUB317.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.95]) by mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id u7OCvV96002880 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:57:31 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB317.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.95]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:57:31 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt> (An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt> (An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AQHR6e3PZvCM19CnmkS4CiuVyi2ITaBHUNeAgAEcNgCACyVBAIACZYbggAD5foCAAUTt0A==
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:57:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F65FE24@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> <CADnDZ89vX+dCc1zn7yQzPY8_PskNVYgexM4dbk3=vRnZzYiVLw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ89vX+dCc1zn7yQzPY8_PskNVYgexM4dbk3=vRnZzYiVLw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.44.142]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362F65FE24MX307CL04corpem_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UtmAbzPP2wJTFnTa220qZDkJoQA>
Cc: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, "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: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:57:58 -0000

AB,

> 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).

To be precise, the term “virtual DC” would be as defined in RFC 7365 *if* that term were used.  The virtual DC term is not used in this draft and it’s also not used in RFC 7365 outside of its definition in section 1.1.

> 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.
The terminology is not different, but the virtual DC concept is not needed to describe the NVO3 architecture or the NVO3 framework.

> For me as we can have a VLAN defined on a LAN, then we can have vDC on a DC.

Sure, see section 4.3 of the NVO3 use case draft - vDC could be mentioned as a use case example if a reference to that use case draft is added.

Thanks, --David

From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:20 AM
To: Black, David
Cc: ietf; matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com; nvo3@ietf.org; Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt> (An Architecture for Data Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)) to Informational RFC

Hi David,

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