Benson, > 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...
"a day or two" passed few days ago... When are you going to start LC on the VM Mobility Draft ? Yakov. > > 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=E2=80=99d like to see discussed on the list before we take that st= > ep", > > 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=E2=80=99ve changed the message Subject to better reflect this topi= > c.) > > > > > > > > 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 lis= > t > > > 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=E2=80=99t see value in debating this, but I= > will > > > explain my decision. I consider the VM Mobility draft to be a =E2=80=9C= > companion=E2=80=9D > > > to the Problem Statement. And I assert that if it is complete (or nearl= > y > > > 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=E2=80=99ve had some= > private > > > feedback that I=E2=80=99d like to see discussed on the list before we t= > ake 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=E2=80=99m 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=E2=80=99m also happy to discus this here on the mailin= > g list. > > > But I=E2=80=99d like to see some kind of response before making a decis= > ion 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 > > > > --001a11c115a0c98f540502051bb8 > Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <p dir=3D"ltr">Hi, Yakov and Behcet. </p> > <p dir=3D"ltr">If the private feedback that I referred to doesn't becom= e public on the mailing list, then for the purpose of my evaluation it does= > n't exist. </p> > <p dir=3D"ltr">I will hold off on starting LC for a day or two, just to acc= > ommodate the US holiday... </p> > <p dir=3D"ltr">Cheers,<br> > -Benson<br></p> > <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sep 1, 2014 1:16 PM, "Yakov Rekhter"= > ; <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>> wrote:= > <br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:= > 0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> > Behcet,<br> > <br> > > -----Original Message-----<br> > > From: nvo3 [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]";>nvo3-bounc= > [email protected]</a>] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya<br> > > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 12:09 PM<br> > > To: Benson Schliesser; Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)<br> > > Cc: <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a><br> > > Subject: Re: [nvo3] VM Mobility Draft<br> > ><br> > > Hi Ben, Matthew,<br> > ><br> > > Yes, nvo3 worked on problem statement and issues on VM mobility. I<br> > > support progressing Linda's draft.<br> > <br> > As a co-author I support progressing the draft.<br> > <br> > If, as Benson said in the e-mail below, there is "some private feedbac= > k<br> > that I=E2=80=99d like to see discussed on the list before we take that step= > ",<br> > I suggest to discuss this feedback as part of the WG Last Call.<br> > <br> > Yakov.<br> > <br> > ><br> > > I just wonder if,=C2=A0 with the new charter, nvo3 will be able work o= > n VM<br> > > mobility solutions, including on VXLAN environments?<br> > ><br> > > Regards,<br> > ><br> > > Behcet<br> > ><br> > ><br> > ><br> > ><br> > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Benson Schliesser<br> > > <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>= > > wrote:<br> > > > Hi, Linda -<br> > > ><br> > > > (I=E2=80=99ve changed the message Subject to better reflect this = > topic.)<br> > > ><br> > > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Linda Dunbar <<a href=3D"mailto:= > [email protected]">[email protected]</a>><br> > > wrote:<br> > > >> I think we should decide how to handle this based on a WG dis= > cussion<br> > > about the draft, instead of binding it to the rechartering. It might b= > e<br> > > worthwhile to have a brief presentation on the draft at the 11-Sep<br> > > virtual interim meeting - can one of the authors lead this?<br> > > >><br> > > >> [Linda] The mobility draft is to address an important area of= > VM<br> > > mobility in Data Centers, which the WG had adopted to become WG draft<= > br> > > long time ago. We sent request for WG Last call many months ago. But<b= > r> > > there hasn't been any action. Since the MILESTONEs have separate i= > tems<br> > > for IESG Review and WG adoption for many drafts, it is necessary to li= > st<br> > > VM Mobility as well.<br> > > ><br> > > > I see two related questions here. First is the question about whe= > ther<br> > > we need to create a milestone for the VM Mobility draft. Second is<br> > > whether it is ready for last call.<br> > > ><br> > > > On the first topic, I don=E2=80=99t see value in debating this, b= > ut I will<br> > > explain my decision. I consider the VM Mobility draft to be a =E2=80= > =9Ccompanion=E2=80=9D<br> > > to the Problem Statement. And I assert that if it is complete (or near= > ly<br> > > complete) then a milestone is unnecessary from a management tracking<b= > r> > > perspective. Thus, we do not need another milestone specifically for a= > VM<br> > > Mobility Issues document unless the WG feels that it needs more work,<= > br> > > material changes, etc.<br> > > ><br> > > > On the second topic, personally I agree with you that the VM Mobi= > lity<br> > > Issues draft should be last-called soon. However, I=E2=80=99ve had som= > e private<br> > > feedback that I=E2=80=99d like to see discussed on the list before we = > take that<br> > > step. Specifically, a couple people commented that the draft is<br> > > unnecessary, questioning whether it adds materially to what is already= > <br> > > captured in the Problem Statement. I=E2=80=99m not endorsing this poin= > t of view,<br> > > but nor am I challenging it.<br> > > ><br> > > > Thus, in my last message I submitted a request for you to present= > the<br> > > draft at the upcoming interim meeting, to give us a chance to discuss<= > br> > > this feedback. I=E2=80=99m also happy to discus this here on the maili= > ng list.<br> > > But I=E2=80=99d like to see some kind of response before making a deci= > sion to<br> > > last-call the draft.<br> > > ><br> > > > Thanks,<br> > > > -Benson<br> > > ><br> > > ><br> > > > _______________________________________________<br> > > > nvo3 mailing list<br> > > > <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a><br> > > > <a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3"; target=3D"= > _blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3</a><br> > ><br> > > _______________________________________________<br> > > nvo3 mailing list<br> > > <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a><br> > > <a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3"; target=3D"_blan= > k">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3</a><br> > </blockquote></div> > > --001a11c115a0c98f540502051bb8-- _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
