Re: [vnfpool] new VNFPool draft charter

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 6/5/14 12:44 PM, Susan Hares wrote:
> Melinda:
> 
> If we leave it scope for this phase,  but open for some future phase I think
> it will help the discussion.  This will allows to build toward this phase.
> Of course, I'm coming from the router/SDN platform view point. 

I think it will help among people who'd like to use it but
hurt us politically, to be frank - this is an issue that always
raises a lot of ire in the quarter of the IETF in which we're
now operating.  We'd also be faced with the difficult of answering
the question of why a vendor would want a customer to be able to fail,
say, their firewall over to another vendor's firewall.  The obvious
answer to that is that customers want it, but that doesn't mean
that vendors will implement that kind of mechanism, and when we've
done polls about this kind of thing we haven't been able to get
any vendor to say they'd do it.  So, if people really want to
include text saying that this is future work, by all means do so
but do so with knowledge of how discussions have gone in the very
recent past.

And to be clear, to say that it's out of scope means that it's out of
scope *now* - as we know all decisions may be revisited in the
future.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
No Mountain Software
[e-mail]

"Software longa, hardware brevis."