Re: [Tsv-art] TSV Triage team: Review of IETF LC documents as of 01/11

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

I'll go do that tomorrow.

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tsv-art [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind
> (IETF)
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 10:43 AM
> To: Joe Touch; Black, David
> Cc: Martin Stiemerling; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] TSV Triage team: Review of IETF LC documents as of 01/11
> 
> Hi Joe, hi David,
> 
> if one of you could actually still provide a „official“ tsv-art review, that would help
> Spencer and me to refer to something in our ballot position. But we would need
> that soon… anybody able to do that?
> 
> Thanks!
> Mirja
> 
> 
> > Am 14.01.2017 um 20:28 schrieb Joe Touch <[e-mail]>:
> >
> > I'm not a fan of using human administrative, political, or economic boundary
> terms as if they had any meaning in a network architecture.
> >
> > Tenant system, VM, vGW, and even DC (or NVO3 for that matter) are
> insufficiently defined, IMO. But that's a fault of the entire WG, not just this doc.
> >
> > This leads to gibberis (IMO) like:
> >   One NVO3 network can provide connectivity to many TSs that attach to
> >   many different NVEs in a DC. TS dynamic placement and mobility
> >   results in frequent changes of the binding between a TS and an NVE.
> >
> > This doc boils down to "overlays are useful in data centers". Why wouldn't they
> be? How are data centers different (they really aren't, except that some fall into
> the class of "managed subnetworks" that can use custom settings).
> >
> > I really don't see the need for this doc at all.
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > On 1/14/2017 10:33 AM, Black, David wrote:
> >> Joe,
> >>
> >> I'll take another look at this draft before the telechat. The NVO3 WG is
> publishing this use case draft now in part because they badly lost their way over
> the past couple of years :-(. I have not been a fan of this draft in the WG, but I
> don't fundamentally object to its publication.
> >>
> >> Could you provide a few examples of terminology in the draft that you view as
> problematic?
> >>
> >> Thanks, --David ... Sent from my Android not-so-smartphone.
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Original message --------
> >> From: Joe Touch <[e-mail]>
> >> Date: 1/14/17 9:23 AM (GMT-08:00)
> >> To: "Black, David" <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>, Martin Stiemerling
> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] TSV Triage team: Review of IETF LC documents as of
> 01/11
> >>
> >> David - I think it'd be useful for fresh eyes on this. IMO, it's full of
> >> vendor terminology that I don't think sufficiently differentiates the
> >> data center case from any other variant of virtual network.
> >>
> >> This is the use case doc that purports to motivate "yet another" UDP
> >> tunneling mechanism, which has generated quite a bit of controversy and
> >> I expect would be more relevant to TSV.
> >>
> >> However, I'm struck by the need to publish a use case doc so soon after
> >> the problem statement doc (just two years ago), but that's not a TSV issue.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/14/2017 8:09 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> >> > I've been giving them feedback for a while.
> >> >
> >> > Joe
> >> >
> >> >> On Jan 14, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> As one of the authors of the NVO3 architecture RFC, RFC 8014, I'd be willing
> to help with a Transport review of this NVO3 use case draft.  That'll have to
> happen quickly, as it looks like IETF LC ended on Wednesday, and the draft's on
> this week's telechat agenda.
> >> >>
> >> >> Joe?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks, --David
> >> >>
> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >> >>> From: Tsv-art [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mirja
> Kuehlewind
> >> >>> (IETF)
> >> >>> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 6:49 AM
> >> >>> To: Joe Touch
> >> >>> Cc: Martin Stiemerling; [e-mail]
> >> >>> Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] TSV Triage team: Review of IETF LC documents as of
> 01/11
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi Joe,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I also thought that this could potentially have a transport review. If you’d
> be able
> >> >>> to send one that be great, please do so. Or what do you meant by it’s
> already
> >> >>> being watched?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Mirja
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Am 13.01.2017 um 23:09 schrieb Joe Touch <[e-mail]>:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hi Martin,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I've been tracking this one for a while:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-15
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> It does have significant transport issues, but it's already being
> >> >>>> watched ;-)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Joe
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On 1/11/2017 1:52 PM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> >> >>>>> Dear TSVers,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> First of all, a happy new (western) year! :)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I did work through all documents that are in IETF LC, IESG processing
> >> >>>>> or being requested for publication as of 01/11, 09:00 pm UTC.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Please find below all documents checked and what to do with these
> >> >>>>> documents.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Documents that require TSV attention:
> >> >>>>> none.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Documents that do not require TSV attention:
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-09
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis-15
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-intarea-hostname-practice-03
> >> >>>>> draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms-10
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-08
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-06
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-06
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-03
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-10
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-04
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-22
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-21
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-13
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-6man-rdnss-rfc6106bis-14
> >> >>>>> draft-holmberg-dispatch-mcptt-rp-namespace-04
> >> >>>>> draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-13
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-03
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-payload-melpe-04
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-11
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-clue-rtp-mapping-10
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-07
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-03
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-15
> >> >>>>> draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-14
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thanks,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Martin
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> Tsv-art mailing list
> >> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>> Tsv-art mailing list
> >> >>>> [e-mail]
> >> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> Tsv-art mailing list
> >> >>> [e-mail]
> >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tsv-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art