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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 1/17/2017 4:10 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I finally read the draft myself completely. I agree that there is nothing in the draft that motivates a new tunnel protocol, however, the draft is also not (explicitly) requiring a new protocol.
>
> This says in the summary:
>
> „A tunnel encapsulation protocol is necessary.“
>
> which clearly doesn’t say that an existing one might not be sufficient.

Good point, but it begs the question of the need for the rest of the
document. The use cases have nothing to do uniquely with datacenters.
> I don’t think there is anything we can do at this stage and with this draft…

The IETF does err on the side of publishing (rather than requiring
"proof of need or utility"). However, there's always the opportunity for
pushback at the higher levels, e.g., to make sure that the doc itself
indicates clearly what it does and does not contribute. E.g., it's
possible to ask for a sentence explaining exactly how this is different
from any other sort of overlay network - or stating clearly that the
conclusion is that datacenters are not unique in their use of overlays.

Joe

>
> I’ll wait for David’s review before I put in my ballot.
>
> Mirja
>
>
>> Am 14.01.2017 um 18:22 schrieb Joe Touch <[e-mail]>:
>>
>> 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