Re: [vnfpool] State management

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 7/25/14, 8:51 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
> In my view, without state management, the vnfpool problem is hardly
> solvable, i.e., reaching a usable goal. Hence, it is my attempt to
> understand the "puzzle" posted by Martin. IETF prefers real use case
> droven design.

I'd argue that while it may be the case, the piece that's
missing here, I think, is that the IETF prefers problems
to be broken down into solvable chunks.  State management
is necessarily application-specific, while what we've been
trying to work on is a common substrate that can be used
to carry application-specific state.  So, for the time being,
the substrate would be in-scope and the application state
would be out-of-scope, whether it would be handled by a
rechartered vnfpool or a separate working group (or
working groups).  There's certainly precedent for this
sort of approach - for example nsis, MPLS, and others.
One of the things that concerns me, as someone who'd like
to see the work progress, is that those who are insisting
that this is an atomic problem seem also to effectively be
arguing against a modular approach to designing a solution.
And frankly I'm somewhat dismayed by that.

Melinda