[vnfpool] BOF follow-up

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Tue, 04 March 2014 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10DF41A0033 for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:47:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 XEyi6tXCweE2 for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8B81A0031 for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 03:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id k14so2988067wgh.23 for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 03:47:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k69ir42QPEzaag01Bd2RoZfBz1NE8RrVSw/k9qHQqXY=; b=Un6+WNVvRQ0k4zvAYpZAXmUPyYV8uWe3udDOM2pIWzcNqT0e+K4885u650yiXGGD7c YpdBxm3GYXYbsBQ4ysOLjFBVIp+BHVA6YjrfrlODynHok+itMDAIGjRgcXoE/qgxzIt5 /QdJhxupC2soASyalP+Z7lNHALbwD2Lr/BD/DSiJfPNT3DsxSh2vglSyV7iY5NyfdB0q 0lyKsvGx/WJ4oY6KbRUfzBbV/H2nnYOwlcNMqgHzFGJaZwOY37rIrPeO3FfaIc4uGIuC 4ojmS9JEkde5COntHonKwTug2D9PJ3A8eKvNrL9j11Cs6zFPYWMfuYVqAvl2+qO6OE/e 0Xvw==
X-Received: by 10.194.60.103 with SMTP id g7mr26902135wjr.37.1393933623905; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 03:47:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:1232:152:3445:a9ee:1896:f382? ([2001:67c:1232:152:3445:a9ee:1896:f382]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h13sm51352570wjr.22.2014.03.04.03.47.02 for <vnfpool@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Mar 2014 03:47:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5315BD36.8020300@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:47:02 +0000
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vnfpool@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vnfpool/7IPpRS1iqgZPMKQ8eO28wZnpTWw
Subject: [vnfpool] BOF follow-up
X-BeenThere: vnfpool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for virtual network function resource pooling." <vnfpool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vnfpool>, <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vnfpool/>
List-Post: <mailto:vnfpool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool>, <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:47:09 -0000

Many thanks to everyone who participated in this morning's
BOF.  We'll be sending along complete minutes when those are
available but in the meantime I took notes on some of the
areas that have been identified as needing additional
clarification in both the problem statement and the draft
charter.  These include:

problem statement

Clarify issues around why virtualized functions are distinct from 
physical ones  <-----
discuss degraded performance
clarify what we mean by "transport"
discuss transfer of security state
make sure that problem statement and charter align
Align use cases, consolidate commonalities
Need a lexicon/terminology section
tease apart issues related to pooling vs. service graph


charter:
failover performance
may be issues with inter-pool coordination
clarify what's meant by service availability being out of scope
need to investigate whether or not we have state sharing expertise in 
those participating
need to be clearer about the boundaries of the work
business case and state synchronization
application vs. pool state


We'll be working on revisions of both and will get those sent out
in the next few weeks.  In the meantime, contributions of text
are always (ALWAYS) welcome.

Many thanks,

Melinda