IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Thu, 24 July 2014 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.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 085A91A03B7 for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 1Qn0-Bveor2n for <vnfpool@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22c.google.com (mail-ie0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C18A71A03B1 for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id lx4so2379001iec.3 for <vnfpool@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=50YO7mYsUDJG5NSCZ17yJpXrPI9yZM+2nHs8BZngrTY=; b=P+YdjBNIBaD/lTuQoR2/GqYGH//LL2u0udHbBvuzqzULq74iRCNazbACYA/9XJ0JWL SNpxZ9B3/1OaPvf2xQIJdKncUKPUyDDModSCKBipD6pIhPu9kbd3vyii5aohn0R8+bpg +bZn1uYeLWgYX+f/R7MDM8+m+e9+VnhRIQPBXAs9a6HCrS5A5Hz0SMPNoBkQ56DtvTWa 22sLPf/Xwd9D777827vs69MmkSl+BUj1aYMI4fQzWAJ09WIGnAu92mIlokDegBlSezBQ 4awoZpgYXYGRCF/EHDFp0sEp4EZVV/xhgjUTi6ctvk8Qgd/4/WvelgNHy6PhsSBhsOTe KqWw==
X-Received: by 10.50.57.68 with SMTP id g4mr40066451igq.48.1406213114045; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-9055.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-9055.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.144.85]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i8sm49420987igt.17.2014.07.24.07.45.12 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53D11BF6.2080901@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:45:10 -0400
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CANUuoLoQdNMFxon05=R76Z9D3yUnvbpKig_X-kFr3VMW0Qwi7g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/vnfpool/cSIZiwTjJvpeXk-kSlBg8LCvKfo
Cc: vnfpool@ietf.org, mls.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [vnfpool] 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 14:45:21 -0000

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.

Melinda

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email