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

On 24 Jul 2014, at 06:54, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> 
> Am 22.07.14 um 17:34 schrieb Y. Richard Yang:
>> Hi Martin,
>> 
>> Here is one point. One constraint of the proposed work, in my view, is
>> that the scope does not consider state management. Most useful NFs are
>> stateful. Hence, removing state management from the scope is not ideal,
>> and hence is a limit. There is interesting recent progress in generic,
>> reusable NF state management, such as Merge/Split
>> (https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/nsdi13/nsdi13-final205.pdf).
>> If this is included, I believe that the group can develop a lot more
>> more solutions.
> 
> state management is an interesting topic, but there has been explicit community feedback during the first bof that this is not something the potential wg should be working on, as this is very vendor specific.
... and there are most likely a lot IPRs... That was one of the reasons
state sharing was excluded from the scope of RSerPool...

Best regards
Michael
> 
>  Martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vnfpool mailing list
> vnfpool@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vnfpool
> 