Re: [vnfpool] State management

Melinda:

A modular solution is key to the success of the VNF Pool work. Thank you for
reminding us of this fact.  

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 9:26 PM
To: Y. Richard Yang; adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: vnfpool@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] State management

On 7/25/14, 8:51 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
> In my view, without state management, the vnfpool problem is hardly 
> solvable, i.e., reaching a usable goal. Hence, it is my attempt to 
> understand the "puzzle" posted by Martin. IETF prefers real use case 
> droven design.

I'd argue that while it may be the case, the piece that's missing here, I
think, is that the IETF prefers problems to be broken down into solvable
chunks.  State management is necessarily application-specific, while what
we've been trying to work on is a common substrate that can be used to carry
application-specific state.  So, for the time being, the substrate would be
in-scope and the application state would be out-of-scope, whether it would
be handled by a rechartered vnfpool or a separate working group (or working
groups).  There's certainly precedent for this sort of approach - for
example nsis, MPLS, and others.
One of the things that concerns me, as someone who'd like to see the work
progress, is that those who are insisting that this is an atomic problem
seem also to effectively be arguing against a modular approach to designing
a solution.
And frankly I'm somewhat dismayed by that.

Melinda

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