Re: [nvo3] Call for WG Adoption of draft-herbert-gue-03

Jesse Gross <jgross@vmware.com> Fri, 20 March 2015 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jgross@vmware.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 2A0011ACDA6 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 nsXCwGL3a064 for <nvo3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com [208.91.2.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 035AD1ACDAF for <nvo3@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sc9-mailhost1.vmware.com (sc9-mailhost1.vmware.com [10.113.161.71]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A224291AD; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EX13-CAS-012.vmware.com (EX13-CAS-012.vmware.com [10.113.191.64]) by sc9-mailhost1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614D818339; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EX13-MBX-010.vmware.com (10.113.191.30) by EX13-MBX-016.vmware.com (10.113.191.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.913.22; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:42:01 -0700
Received: from EX13-MBX-010.vmware.com ([fe80::c937:743c:749c:829b]) by EX13-MBX-010.vmware.com ([fe80::c937:743c:749c:829b%15]) with mapi id 15.00.0913.011; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:42:01 -0700
From: Jesse Gross <jgross@vmware.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
Thread-Topic: [nvo3] Call for WG Adoption of draft-herbert-gue-03
Thread-Index: AQHQYnMj6wvvqN/DEkymz4X7QX4bhZ0ktpIAgADeGYA=
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:42:01 +0000
Message-ID: <D1319B4F.F4A6%jgross@vmware.com>
References: <550B1616.6040507@queuefull.net> <CALx6S34KKfpA8rD4qwJRWSbtu6+H7Y1nVj6Xb8soZKPE4rtP_g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S34KKfpA8rD4qwJRWSbtu6+H7Y1nVj6Xb8soZKPE4rtP_g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.113.160.246]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <C8BE42C1C70FD94C864EB70BE23C2978@pa-exch1.vmware.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/yxn2cQerjz5rKGnYr1b-ApqK8Fs>
Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] Call for WG Adoption of draft-herbert-gue-03
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: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 16:42:38 -0000

On 3/19/15, 1:27 PM, "Tom Herbert" <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Benson Schliesser
><bensons@queuefull.net> wrote:
>> This message starts a 2-week Call for Adoption of draft-herbert-gue-03
>>as a
>> NVO3 WG item.
>>
>Benson asked me to query the list on this...
>
>There is a subtlety for GUE.
>
>draft-herbert-gue-03 specifies GUE as a generic encapsulation
>protocol.The use of GUE for network virtualization is specified in
>draft-hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo-01. We also specified the security which I
>believe is critical to NVO3 deployment in
>draft-hy-gue-4-secure-transport-01.
>
>I personally think it's a good idea to keep the general specification
>somewhat decoupled from the network virtualization use case as we are
>already seeing deployment use cases for that. But for purposes of WG
>adoption in NVO3 these is a question as to how we should proceed:
>
>Should we request WG adoption for each of these?
>Is it okay to just request adoption of the primary GUE draft?
>Should we consolidate these into one draft for NVO3 purposes?

I agree that it is nicer to keep the different components decoupled. I
would start with just the adoption of the base draft and go from there to
keep things simpler but that¹s just my personal opinion, I don¹t think it
really matters all that much.