Re: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

Thomas,

I thought Matthew's email was very clear.  What part of it did you not understand?

Perhaps it would be helpful to everyone for you to recast your comments in the form of a reply to Matthew's email.  What do you think? 

Irrespectively Yours,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nvo3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Narten
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:27 AM
> To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
> Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-
> vm-mobility-issues-03.txt
> 
> Chairs, WG:
> 
> I would like to better understand what the "end goal" is in asking for
> WG adoption of vm-mobility. By adopting the document, there is a strong
> presumption the WG will (eventually) send it to the IESG for
> publication.
> 
> Strictly speaking, it is not at all obvious to me which charter item
> deliverable vm-mobility applies to (it certainly isn't one of the 6
> listed in the charter).  I think it takes a pretty broad reading of the
> charter to say this document is "in scope". I have the concern that
> such a reading implies that a whole lot of other "related"
> documents will also then have to be taken on as WG documents. This
> could easily lead to a plethora of documents.
> 
> Before adopting this (or other documents) I think the WG should get a
> little more clear about what types of documents the WG will adopt going
> forward and which it will not.  What is the criteria? Will we take on
> anything the WG says we should adopt, regardless of what the charter
> says, and regardless of overlap among drafts?
> 
> That said, I do think there is useful stuff in this document, but that
> is also the case for other non-WG documents.  With regards to the
> document itself, there are other documents that relate to the same
> general topic, including (at least):
> 
>        draft-kompella-nvo3-server2nve-01.txt
>        draft-gu-nvo3-tes-nve-mechanism-01.txt
> 
> Is the intention to merge the above into vm-mobility? Or to have yet
> more documents that cover similar ground? And if the intention is to
> merge them, wouldn't it be better to start with that upfront, before
> adopting one document as a WG document?
> 
> Generally speaking, I share Joel's concern that having more documents
> is not necessary a good thing, especially when a lot of them end up
> repeating some of the same material.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> nvo3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3