Re: [vnfpool] 答复: new VNFPool draft charter

WFM

Cheers, 
Mehmet 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Zongning [mailto:zongning@huawei.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 5:02 AM
> To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); vnfpool@ietf.org
> Subject: 答复: [vnfpool] 答复: new VNFPool draft charter
> 
> Hi, Mehmet,
> 
> Thanks for your support and suggestions!
> 
> Yes, I agree that we can do better wording (combing what you and Linda
> have suggested) along the lines of -
> "a VNF may adopt a pooling mechanism, where a number of VNF instances
> with the same function can be grouped as a pool to provide the
> function. We call such a pool a VNF Pool.".
> 
> -Ning
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:mehmet.ersue@nsn.com]
> 发送时间: 2014年6月7日 2:38
> 收件人: Zongning; vnfpool@ietf.org
> 主题: RE: [vnfpool] 答复: new VNFPool draft charter
> 
> Hi Ning,
> 
> the charter looks good to me and is valuable. I am very much in favor
> of this work.
> 
> Concerning "a VNF may adopt a pooling mechanism by using a number of
> VNF instances providing the same function, which we call a “VNF Pool”."
> 
> I think a VNF exists as a template plus a SW package, which can be
> instantiated to create VNF instances. It is probably not the best
> wording if we say: "A VNF uses a number of VNF instances providing the
> same function."
> 
> Would the text below work for you?
> "a VNF may adopt a pooling mechanism, where a "VNF Pool" is used
> comprising a number of VNF instances with the same function."
> 
> s/normal/regular/
> 
> Cheers,
> Mehmet
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext
> > Zongning
> > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 4:04 AM
> > To: Susan Hares; 'Melinda Shore'; vnfpool@ietf.org
> > Subject: [vnfpool] 答复: new VNFPool draft charter
> >
> > Hi, Sue, Melinda, and Diego,
> >
> > I don't see any controversy in your views. As said by Melinda, it's
> out
> > of scope means that it's out of scope *now*, or *in this phase*.
> >
> > So I'd propose:
> > service state synchronization is out of scope - > service state
> > synchronization is out of scope in this phase.
> >
> > Make sense?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Ning
> >
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Susan Hares
> > 发送时间: 2014年6月6日 5:19
> > 收件人: 'Melinda Shore'; vnfpool@ietf.org
> > 主题: Re: [vnfpool] new VNFPool draft charter
> >
> > Melinda:
> >
> > If it is a layer 9 issue (politics) to get the work started, then it
> > out of scope. I really just want to get going on this work.
> >
> > Sue
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda
> > Shore
> > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 5:03 PM
> > To: vnfpool@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [vnfpool] new VNFPool draft charter
> >
> > On 6/5/14 12:44 PM, Susan Hares wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > I think it will help among people who'd like to use it but hurt us
> > politically, to be frank - this is an issue that always raises a lot
> of
> > ire in the quarter of the IETF in which we're now operating.  We'd
> also
> > be faced with the difficult of answering the question of why a vendor
> > would want a customer to be able to fail, say, their firewall over to
> > another vendor's firewall.  The obvious answer to that is that
> > customers want it, but that doesn't mean that vendors will implement
> > that kind of mechanism, and when we've done polls about this kind of
> > thing we haven't been able to get any vendor to say they'd do it.
> So,
> > if people really want to include text saying that this is future
> work,
> > by all means do so but do so with knowledge of how discussions have
> > gone in the very recent past.
> >
> > And to be clear, to say that it's out of scope means that it's out of
> > scope
> > *now* - as we know all decisions may be revisited in the future.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > vnfpool mailing list
> > vnfpool@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool
> > _______________________________________________
> > vnfpool mailing list
> > vnfpool@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool