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

Marc,

An updated draft would be excellent -before Thursday, preferably.

Thanks,
Alia

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:01 AM, LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) <
marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

>  Alia,
>
> I have replied and suggested some minor edits to address Linda and Lucy's
> comments. I have suggested to be protocol agnostic rather than giving
> specific examples in the multi-homing case.
> Some of Linda's comments have been discussed at length in the past and
> there was clear WG consensus that the framework draft addressed NVO3's
> problem.
>
> Let me know if you want me to post a revised draft based on these minor
> edits and some other suggested edits from other IETF reviewers received
> last week prior to next week IESG review.
>
> Regards,
> Marc
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] * On Behalf Of *Alia Atlas
> *Sent:* Monday, June 02, 2014 8:59 PM
>
> *To:* Thomas Narten
> *Cc:* nvo3@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; Linda Dunbar
> *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt>
> (Framework for DC Network Virtualization) to Informational RFC
>
>  Thomas,
>
>  The NVO3 Framework draft is in IETF Last Call, which isn't precisely
> stalled.
> It is true that Linda and Lucy have raised some concerns about it.
>
>  I have not yet heard from the WG chairs or authors whether the desired
> changes
> have been previously discussed and had consensus determined in the WG.
>  Linda indicated that her
> comments had already been discussed on the nvo3 mailing list.  Lucy is
> requesting that different
> technology be indicated as examples - perhaps to give a sense of future
> possible solutions to the
> readers of the draft.
>
>  If there is WG consensus to make a few minor edits, that can be done
> before the
> IESG review next week.  It is on the next telechat, so I would appreciate
> speed in
> resolving the minor comment.
>
>  Regards,
> Alia
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nvo3 mailing list
>> nvo3@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>>
>
>