Hi, Behcet - The answer to your question is definitely Yes. But just to be clear: NVO3 can work on solutions to networking, based on the architectural tenets outlined in the charter, to support VM mobility. NVO3 scope would not include non-network issues etc. (I don't think that's what you're asking, but I wanted to make sure it is understood.)
Cheers, -Benson On Sep 2, 2014 2:10 PM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know why but Yakov jumped on a small part of my message. > > Ben, can you spare some comments on this? > > I just wonder if, with the new charter, nvo3 will be able work on VM > mobility solutions, including on VXLAN environments? > > Regards, > > Behcet > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Benson Schliesser <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, Yakov and Behcet. > > > > If the private feedback that I referred to doesn't become public on the > > mailing list, then for the purpose of my evaluation it doesn't exist. > > > > I will hold off on starting LC for a day or two, just to accommodate the > US > > holiday... > > > > Cheers, > > -Benson > > > > On Sep 1, 2014 1:16 PM, "Yakov Rekhter" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Behcet, > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Behcet > Sarikaya > >> > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 12:09 PM > >> > To: Benson Schliesser; Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) > >> > Cc: [email protected] > >> > Subject: Re: [nvo3] VM Mobility Draft > >> > > >> > Hi Ben, Matthew, > >> > > >> > Yes, nvo3 worked on problem statement and issues on VM mobility. I > >> > support progressing Linda's draft. > >> > >> As a co-author I support progressing the draft. > >> > >> If, as Benson said in the e-mail below, there is "some private feedback > >> that I’d like to see discussed on the list before we take that step", > >> I suggest to discuss this feedback as part of the WG Last Call. > >> > >> Yakov. > >> > >> > > >> > I just wonder if, with the new charter, nvo3 will be able work on VM > >> > mobility solutions, including on VXLAN environments? > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Behcet > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Benson Schliesser > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > Hi, Linda - > >> > > > >> > > (I’ve changed the message Subject to better reflect this topic.) > >> > > > >> > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Linda Dunbar <[email protected] > > > >> > wrote: > >> > >> I think we should decide how to handle this based on a WG > discussion > >> > about the draft, instead of binding it to the rechartering. It might > be > >> > worthwhile to have a brief presentation on the draft at the 11-Sep > >> > virtual interim meeting - can one of the authors lead this? > >> > >> > >> > >> [Linda] The mobility draft is to address an important area of VM > >> > mobility in Data Centers, which the WG had adopted to become WG draft > >> > long time ago. We sent request for WG Last call many months ago. But > >> > there hasn't been any action. Since the MILESTONEs have separate items > >> > for IESG Review and WG adoption for many drafts, it is necessary to > list > >> > VM Mobility as well. > >> > > > >> > > I see two related questions here. First is the question about > whether > >> > we need to create a milestone for the VM Mobility draft. Second is > >> > whether it is ready for last call. > >> > > > >> > > On the first topic, I don’t see value in debating this, but I will > >> > explain my decision. I consider the VM Mobility draft to be a > >> > “companion” > >> > to the Problem Statement. And I assert that if it is complete (or > nearly > >> > complete) then a milestone is unnecessary from a management tracking > >> > perspective. Thus, we do not need another milestone specifically for a > >> > VM > >> > Mobility Issues document unless the WG feels that it needs more work, > >> > material changes, etc. > >> > > > >> > > On the second topic, personally I agree with you that the VM > Mobility > >> > Issues draft should be last-called soon. However, I’ve had some > private > >> > feedback that I’d like to see discussed on the list before we take > that > >> > step. Specifically, a couple people commented that the draft is > >> > unnecessary, questioning whether it adds materially to what is already > >> > captured in the Problem Statement. I’m not endorsing this point of > view, > >> > but nor am I challenging it. > >> > > > >> > > Thus, in my last message I submitted a request for you to present > the > >> > draft at the upcoming interim meeting, to give us a chance to discuss > >> > this feedback. I’m also happy to discus this here on the mailing list. > >> > But I’d like to see some kind of response before making a decision to > >> > last-call the draft. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > -Benson > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > nvo3 mailing list > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > nvo3 mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
