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