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

"Y. Richard Yang" <> Thu, 24 July 2014 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4971A0444 for <>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IRkTaJOyCzgs for <>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D5151A0503 for <>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id la4so5425803vcb.33 for <>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=QE0LgR6gqKG1T1gFU56FS3+MGUHCvIr+pTHBGh8plIQ=; b=e8HJtn+xavUxXo+hdCsiERRW71/EN/kHOGafgAIkfYBwf8U2B+tgiEBmvIb2d7Cpfc TKhDItk0SoQJp3Fjt1AxnBZ1hv+K4d/ImjI+2iu90kzvICUlUR6nUF4B7zkiOppbE2Mq MrVsLw93OfKnSFYN/u8VEoemSgF1WtlpCYyXC7n9xxUmxYbyEfUpZiFpu5czDA/Sptj/ Zo9fTi37hXPHjq51WWDnzoXpV2pPqSiP1EOowWF+NJ+Dzj1tHsudk/vb9j7luYAW28uC B94E7v+LRlYh/k6Ld4mo9A1tZDd6q3KMv/Ocok5X+lPvU/7WKAx7eQGk36Fr59NXfBaX ME1w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 6mr14226638vcg.31.1406221868121; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:11:08 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0qHmzEt_cvieaaOfnI9-9GymTJI
Message-ID: <>
From: "Y. Richard Yang" <>
To: Melinda Shore <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3cef2ecc55f04fef38a66"
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] Follow-up question from the BOF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for virtual network function resource pooling." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:11:12 -0000

Hi Melinda,

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Melinda Shore <>

> 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.



> Melinda