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

Martin, Michael,

IPR concerns are valid, but if they are crucial to solve the problem, and
the solution provides higher benefit, they could be addressed, right?

Regarding vendor specific solution, this is a very good point! Please take
a look at approaches such as merge/split. They allow vendor specific
packaging of NF state. Hence, transfers of state can be only among NFs of
the same vendor. The advance, however, is that at least the controller can
be different from the NF vendors. This is a good progress, in my view. Make
sense?

Richard
On Jul 24, 2014 7:09 AM, "Michael Tuexen" <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
wrote:

>
> 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
> >
>
>