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

["Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks!

> Am 16.01.2017 um 22:34 schrieb 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