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

["Y. Richard Yang" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Melinda,

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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.


The road map I see is that the initial tagging of state will be (NF,
vendor) specific, to allow both vendor innovation and more standard
controller-NF interaction. If good progress is made and an
agreement/convergence is achieved, for some NFs, it might become only NF.


> That is to say,
> I think we're in good shape in terms of not closing off the
> possibility of future work.
>
>
My personal suggestion is to include generic state management in scope. I
see good progress in this space already, and it is time for transfer. This
will substantially increase the usability and timeliness of the proposed
work. The plenary last night talked about more timeliness of IETF work.
This comment is in that spirit.

Cheers,

Richard


> Melinda