Re: [nvo3] Fwd: DRAFT Charter Update for Discussion

[Benson Schliesser <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Linda.

I think we captured the same idea in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the proposed
charter. (See
http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/nvo3/charter-ietf-nvo3-01-rev-20140808.txt
for reference.) Are you suggesting that we also add those ideas to the
first paragraph? I think that could be a good idea, but I'd like to do it
in a concise way.

If so, could you please look at the text from Don Fedyk (see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/Z_vhgIF_rWz92VxuuZ1pMXjfaUo) and
suggest how to improve it with these ideas?

Thanks,
-Benson





On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>  Benson,
>
>
>
> I like your elaboration: a specific type of DCVPN: overlay-based with a
> logically centralized control plane.
>
> It would be great if this explanation can be included in the Charter,
> something like:
>
>
>
> “An NVO3 solution is to address a specific type of Data Center Virtual Private Network (DCVPN) that is overlay-based with a logically centralized control plane. The NVO3 WG will develop a set of protocols and/or protocol extensions that address the issues
>
> described by draft-ietf-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement consistent with the
>
> approach described by draft-ietf-nvo3-framework.”
>
>
>
> Linda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Benson Schliesser [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:57 PM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] Fwd: DRAFT Charter Update for Discussion
>
>
>
> Hi, Linda.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> The proposed charter is so general that there is not much to pick on. Yes,
> you have done a great job drafting it.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if you're serious, or teasing me / being sarcastic, but
> either way I guess it puts a smile on my face. ;)
>
>
>
>   So the NVO3 is now DCVPN? Since the underlay is IP, will it become
> another L3VPN?
>
>
>
> Somebody else asked me a similar question privately, so I want to make
> sure it's clear...
>
>
>
> The term "NVO3" refers to a working group. The term "DCVPN" refers to the
> category of solutions for providing multi-tenancy, etc in a DC environment.
> There are possibly many technical approaches to designing a DCVPN. Some of
> those approaches might be based on protocols like BGP, MPLS, etc, which are
> developed in other WGs. As proposed in the new charter, NVO3 does not own
> the scope / charter for all work on DCVPNs. Rather, the proposed NVO3
> charter is meant to narrow our focus to a specific type of DCVPN:
> overlay-based with a logically centralized control plane.
>
>
>
> That being said, is that not clear from the text that we proposed? Is
> there some specific way that it could be improved?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Benson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>