[vnfpool] 答复: 答复: new VNFPool draft charter

Zongning <zongning@huawei.com> Mon, 09 June 2014 03:02 UTC

Return-Path: <zongning@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7E01B27BC for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 20:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.563
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VVdNTgwvCtu9 for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 20:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 680331A027D for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 20:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BFF16988; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 03:02:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 04:02:24 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.193]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 11:02:18 +0800
From: Zongning <zongning@huawei.com>
To: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>, "vnfpool@ietf.org" <vnfpool@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?gb2312?B?W3ZuZnBvb2xdILTwuLQ6ICBuZXcgVk5GUG9vbCBkcmFmdCBjaGFydGVy?=
Thread-Index: AQHPgbaA3VMX34ri5kux8dx02RQB0ZtoGLQg
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 03:02:17 +0000
Message-ID: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779661426B5@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC6667796613FC41@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <58B76DBD-F67D-45AC-850B-BDBC67A2443B@tid.es> <538E4DCA.8040004@nomountain.net> <011101cf80fe$f0c22ea0$d2468be0$@ndzh.com> <5390DB02.6010202@nomountain.net> <013901cf8103$c463bef0$4d2b3cd0$@ndzh.com> <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC66677966141E79@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <E4DE949E6CE3E34993A2FF8AE79131F83667A1@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <E4DE949E6CE3E34993A2FF8AE79131F83667A1@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.54]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vnfpool/Ok49C51vCKOA6_lzR-euhBoUL3I
Subject: [vnfpool] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogILTwuLQ6ICBuZXcgVk5GUG9vbCBkcmFmdCBj?= =?gb2312?b?aGFydGVy?=
X-BeenThere: vnfpool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for virtual network function resource pooling." <vnfpool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vnfpool>, <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vnfpool/>
List-Post: <mailto:vnfpool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool>, <mailto:vnfpool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 03:02:29 -0000

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