Re: [nvo3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-10

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

Liyizhou <[e-mail]> writes:
>    Hypervisor/Container: the logical collection of software, firmware
>    and/or hardware that allows the creation and running of server or
>    service appliance virtualization. tNVE is located on
>    Hypervisor/Container. It is loosely used in this document to refer to
>    the end device supporting the virtualization. For simplicity, we also
>    use Hypervisor in this document to represent both hypervisor and
>    container.
>
>  I think this would be clearer if the term you intend to use
>  (hypervisor) was indexed and described as such.  You could also index
>  "container" or "hypervisor/container" and point it to "hypervisor".
>  (Better would be to use a generic word throughout and not overload a
>  term which also has a use of much narrower scope, but it's late to
>  make that change.  The use of "tenant system" is a good example of
>  this style, as it doesn't carry much baggage about what *type* of
>  tenant it is.  OTOH, "tenant system" isn't used consistently in the
>  document.)
>
> [yz] That makes sense to me. I will change the text to
>
> Hypervisor: the logical collection of software, firmware  and/or
> hardware that allows the creation and running of server or  service
> appliance virtualization. tNVE is located on Hypervisor. It is loosely
> used in this document to refer to the end device supporting the
> virtualization. For simplicity, we also use Hypervisor in this
> document to represent both hypervisor and container.

I would favor "supervisor" over "hypervisor".  "Hypervisor" has come to
have a specific meaning -- the control program of a virtual machine
system -- whereas "supervisor", which used to be equivalent to
"operating system", has more or less gone out of fashion.  So you can
use "supervisor" with fewer implications for the relationship between
the "supervisor" and the "tenant system".

Dale