Re: [vnfpool] new VNFPool draft charter

Melinda:

If we leave it scope for this phase,  but open for some future phase I think
it will help the discussion.  This will allows to build toward this phase.
Of course, I'm coming from the router/SDN platform view point. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 6:36 PM
To: vnfpool@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] new VNFPool draft charter

On 6/3/14 2:23 PM, Diego R. Lopez wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It looks really good to me, Ning!
> 
> I am just wondering whether we could give state synchronization a 
> special category (of being "out of scope in this phase" or similar) 
> because I think it is a extremely relevant issue.

This is an extremely contested question.  It seems appropriate to me to view
vnfpool as a layered mechanism, where a layer handling the
reliability/redundancy mechanism may carry other traffic, but that traffic
is opaque to the pooling mechanism.  That traffic might include service
state.  But, this is my second go-'round on state transfer (third, if you
include sami, the first one being rserpool
itself) and I really think it's best to be left out of scope with no
specific future plans for the time being, but to allow a generic transport
mechanism in the pooling traffic.

Melinda

--
Melinda Shore
No Mountain Software
melinda.shore@nomountain.net

"Software longa, hardware brevis."

_______________________________________________
vnfpool mailing list
vnfpool@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool