IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-scheme-00.txt

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Thu, 16 October 2014 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28141A88CD for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 oMDmgUy6uIE0 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com [128.221.224.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B24281A88CB for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maildlpprd55.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd55.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.159]) by mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s9GKEWOX032373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:14:32 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com s9GKEWOX032373
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1413490472; bh=Q1tkt9uAmVo7TRG8Jk7u+BMvJ6U=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=J0Agr2S26okqFKFFBncBlgYrsizeDaLCM0GlGome4oWApQfgQCCnr4ockbxVSmlJq SXEMnCgI3e+Y4AeuhSFChIupItOPvnHl5bqsThXAUQu6zYBDbdHiQ60F1cdELSruLx /wXp8fGV/Zz2XbwzWNwQB+bzwPIXDnSwHC1D1s8g=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com s9GKEWOX032373
Received: from mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.19]) by maildlpprd55.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:13:53 -0400
Received: from mxhub03.corp.emc.com (mxhub03.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.105]) by mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id s9GKEGv6014599 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:14:16 -0400
Received: from MXHUB103.corp.emc.com (10.253.50.16) by mxhub03.corp.emc.com (10.254.141.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:14:16 -0400
Received: from MX104CL02.corp.emc.com ([169.254.8.131]) by MXHUB103.corp.emc.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:14:16 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "sarikaya@ieee.org" <sarikaya@ieee.org>
Thread-Topic: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-scheme-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHP4k9bFhdfM5hN00un/RXCbxclhJwlJlcAgAALdACADjeNgP//zMUQ
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:14:15 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493605C651@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E12B61@dfweml701-chm> <CA+mtBx_uvMxm4-wrUQHRRjjV3dhPqKrUubjsFiGQCkicnFJEZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493604B05F@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E146BC@dfweml701-chm> <CA+mtBx_d5t9uNcCe73eov_S9b4RXdTW-=bZ1RG6h=QvC6WNzhg@mail.gmail.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E14903@dfweml701-chm> <CA+mtBx8=Tx0CbrffUe4KYGmfR+Stk--D0WtAoZ-NHnOQW9_+Ww@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8QAcdRqOBfR6gF_iZ=5hr4WhNErQt9QR2g5Bz4inaBdXDJ5g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+mtBx_3Ok7eNrJ-6FDTAz3bA3T6NnjfNutr69wrF88Rdbh=Tw@mail.gmail.com> <D0588178.169D2B%sgundave@cisco.com> <CA+mtBx_O8_vLazyhne-mUkVTfz+opjAvNc+2-WN1QCph5VOTFg@mail.gmail.com> <D0589A8B.169D64%sgundave@cisco.com> <m3egujg6rf.wl%narten@us.ibm.com> <CA+mtBx_8ESH7bLZMkKYJsvKvB8Tehriy8kiz45GSN1NmS3akUQ@mail.gmail.com> <m37g0bg3c9.wl%narten@us.ibm.com> <CAC8QAcd4bt6BS9F7frwEUmds4u1n2PCwrSihZnLxHk3=ZkkdoA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcd4bt6BS9F7frwEUmds4u1n2PCwrSihZnLxHk3=ZkkdoA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.44.122]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd01.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: DLM_1, public
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/EQUrLlnjmLOXZCURco4I-qiUUvk
Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-scheme-00.txt
X-BeenThere: nvo3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Network Virtualization Overlays \(NVO3\) Working Group" <nvo3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/>
List-Post: <mailto:nvo3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3>, <mailto:nvo3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:14:37 -0000

> The architecture document now became an RFC, it is RFC 7365.
> Which next version will make this clearer?

That would be the framework document (draft-ietf-nvo3-framework).

There should be a new version of the architecture document
(draft-ietf-nvo3-arch) before the Honolulu draft cutoff.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nvo3 [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:15 PM
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Poll for a better name for draft-merged-nvo3-vm-mobility-
> scheme-00.txt
> 
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Hi Tom.
> >
> >> Migration may be a better term than mobility, but the other part of
> >> the phrasing, "node", was to encompass non-VM uses cases of network
> >> virtualization migration in DC-- like job migration, container
> >> migration. Is nvo3 explicitly about "VM" migration so that these
> >> other cases are out of scope?
> >
> > Other cases have always been in scope (e.g., Linux containers, AIX
> > LPARs, Solaris Zones, etc.). We just use the terms VMs and hypervisors
> > all the time because that is the common case, at least at the
> > moment. Looking at the framework and problem statement docs, this
> > isn't called out as clearly as it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> > The next version of the architecture document will make this
> > clearer. I.e., we had  a discussion a while back on the list related
> > to Linux containers.
> 
> 
> The architecture document now became an RFC, it is RFC 7365.
> Which next version will make this clearer?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> nvo3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email