Re: [vnfpool] Follow-up question from the BOF

Hi Martin,

Here is one point. One constraint of the proposed work, in my view, is that
the scope does not consider state management. Most useful NFs are stateful.
Hence, removing state management from the scope is not ideal, and hence is
a limit. There is interesting recent progress in generic, reusable NF state
management, such as Merge/Split (
https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi13/nsdi13-final205.pdf).
If this is included, I believe that the group can develop a lot more more
solutions.

Richard

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> This is a follow-up question from your responsible AD about the first hum
> we did take in the BOF @ IETF-90.
>
> The questions asked was if the technical problem to be worked on is clear?
> A majority on the session did hum against that the technical problem to be
> solved is clear.
>
> However, from the discussion during the BOF session it is not clear to me
> that the technical problem isn't understood.
>
> So now the question:
> Why do people are not convinced that the technical problem is solveable?
>
> So, enlight me :)
>
> Thanks,
>
>   Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> vnfpool mailing list
> vnfpool@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool
>

-- 
-- 
 =====================================
| Y. Richard Yang <yry@cs.yale.edu>   |
| Professor of Computer Science       |
| http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/        |
 =====================================