Hi Diego, Please do read RFC 7282. We don't vote in the IETF for a reason. While the work has been stalled, what matters is technical objections - not a beauty contest.
Regards, Alia On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Garcia Del Rio, Diego (Nokia - US) < [email protected]> wrote: > Given the context, I think indeed option 1 seems to be the only viable > alternative. It seemed close to impossible to get consensus for a single > implementation during the long time the drafts were being discussed, so > trying to vote for one now will probably not lead anywhere, IMO. > > > > > DIEGO GARCÍA DEL RIO > Nuagenetworks from NOKIA > PRODUCT MANAGER > 755 Ravendale Drive > Mountain View CA 94043 > Mobile: +1 (415) 439-9420 > OnNet: 2852-2726 > [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Quinn (paulq) > Sent: Wednesday, 20 July 2016 12:59 > To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email protected]> > Cc: NVO3 <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Mail regarding NVO3 data plane drafts > > Dear Chairs, > > Option 1 seems the most pragmatic and to yield the desired success. > > Thanks > Paul > > > On Jul 14, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > WG, > > > > The NVO3 working group has adopted three data plane encapsulations: > > - VXLAN-GPE, > > - Geneve, > > - GUE (although the draft is moving to the Intarea WG, we > anticipate that NVO3 will still reference this). > > > > We have discussed this situation with Alia and we feel that there is > little benefit to the community in publishing all three as standards track > RFCs. > > > > We would note that the discussion on the drafts has been relatively > light since their adoption. There has not been serious discussion about > their relative pros/cons (if any), or about the actual usefulness of their > extensibility or differentiators. > > > > This leaves two options: > > > > 1) Publish all of them as informational or experimental, potentially > moving one of them to standards track in the future based on > implementation/deployment. > > 2) Pick one now based on technical and/or implementation/deployment > criteria. > > > > We would therefore like to gain a sense of what the WG would like to do > with these drafts. > > > > Please post your comments to the list. We also have a slot to on the > NVO3 agenda in Berlin where we would like to continue this discussion. > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Matthew and Sam > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
