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

Zongning <zongning@huawei.com> Thu, 24 July 2014 15:14 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634151A0456 for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.913
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.913 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=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 82oosv_Dpw02 for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF8841A02D5 for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BKM38944; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:11:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:11:05 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:11:01 +0800
From: Zongning <zongning@huawei.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>
Thread-Topic: [vnfpool] Follow-up question from the BOF
Thread-Index: AQHPpemOJU2UUYr3UESfh3q1MomqwpusF40AgAJx2oCAAAQyAIAACp2AgAAxlwCAAIoRYA==
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:11:00 +0000
Message-ID: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC66677966174CA9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <53CEC61A.9010104@gmail.com> <CANUuoLof21jpfA8nvktVCusuWmAsWSO8b0yMzVVwjOOwVoqDtw@mail.gmail.com> <53D0E5F1.9060503@gmail.com> <F65D00A4-4D37-44A0-9416-F76BFF018BC8@lurchi.franken.de> <CANUuoLoQdNMFxon05=R76Z9D3yUnvbpKig_X-kFr3VMW0Qwi7g@mail.gmail.com> <53D11BF6.2080901@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53D11BF6.2080901@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
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/Wz4k_UasSPGXMJBQ5XMhqbXHwtQ
Cc: "vnfpool@ietf.org" <vnfpool@ietf.org>, "mls.ietf@gmail.com" <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [vnfpool] 答复: Follow-up question from the BOF
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: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 15:14:12 -0000

Just concur to Melinda - we agree to have state management related information to be transported between pool manager and members in a standard way. We have space/options in the protocols, but we need further I-Ds to talk about specification on protocol.
We could put just a few words in our charter to reflect this, if people feel more comfortable. As said, we already have implicit wording, so maybe just a trivial issue.



发件人: vnfpool [mailto:vnfpool-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Melinda Shore
发送时间: 2014年7月24日 10:45
收件人: Y. Richard Yang
抄送: vnfpool@ietf.org; mls.ietf@gmail.com
主题: Re: [vnfpool] Follow-up question from the BOF

Hi, folks:

We're in complete agreement about interoperability between pool managers and pool elements from different vendors, and that's already implicit in the charter (it's why we're talking about standardizing a pooling protocol).  So, on that front I think we're good.  It's probably premature to be talking about protocol specifics but if we assume that the data being transported between the pool manager and pool elements are tagged (whether they're TLVs, JSON, ASN.1 -
whatever!) it allows for future extensibility related to state conveyance, should the need arise.  That is to say, I think we're in good shape in terms of not closing off the possibility of future work.


vnfpool mailing list