Uri, Thank you very much for your thoughts on the standards process.
We do need to understand significant technical objections to whatever existing solution might be stated from. Unfortunately, the solutions haven't responded to much input or changed from the WG yet. Regards, Alia On Jul 24, 2016 5:19 AM, "Elzur, Uri" <[email protected]> wrote: > Reading the threads here, it may be good to take a moment to discuss > expectations out of a std process. To me, a “standard” is about an industry > agreement, on a path forward, in a timely fashion, that paves the way > (ushers in) the next wave of innovation. Let me try to parse it > > > > - Industry agreement: in singular (not in plural). The process > is to produce ONE agreed upon solution that ideally gives no party any > unfair advantage. It is conceivable, however, that leaders retain some of > the first mover advantage. If the outcome is MULTITUDE of “standards”, and > in this particular case, it may mean simply documentation of 3 separate > commercial camps where vendors have created competing approaches, we may > have missed the mark. > > - In a timely fashion: One can’t ignore the time aspect. When > the std process is not moving fast enough, it jeopardizes the value of the > “industry agreement”. In the last years, a significant productivity gains > by the software development and open source, enables much faster evolution, > one risks therefore, a catch up scenario, lost relevance and falling into > documentation. The IETF process has to be updated to cope with the faster > evolution, so that within a year of emerging open source direction (where > relevant) the WG has narrowed down the options to one and is very close to > being done. (yes, I know this is ideal…but this is what is needed) > > - Path forward: that is a suitable technical solution to a given > set of problems with a limited set of forward looking mechanism based on > experience ( the “limit” is really a judgment call to help with the goal of > timeliness); Including however, a reasonable evolution of HW + SW. i.e. > assuming HW (NICs in this case) is to be of stagnant limited functionality > (i.e. XSUM like feature invented in 1996 – 20 years ago) as a base > assumption, should not be the lead assumption. IETF has historically been > more SW oriented, but data path encapsulation should not be SW only > discussion! Also the emergence of programmable HW and modeling of HW to > allow easier programming, means that the std may be relaxed in terms of > rigid assumptions of HW functionality. (also not to ignore other aspects, > in most cases, the std needs to be backwards compatible to not break > existing solutions) > > - New innovation: a successful timely process, keeping pace with > the industry, with less vendor specific options will do the trick here… > > > > If we have similar expectations, it may be easier to converge on the > complicated problem at hand. 3 options on the table for prolonged time, > where the HW and SW have already made progress. So I for one, don’t think > in THIS CASE, creating a 4th option is the way forward. We may be better > served by picking one out of the existing ones > > > > Thx > > > > Uri (“Oo-Ree”) > > C: 949-378-7568 > > > > *From:* nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Linda Dunbar > *Sent:* Friday, July 22, 2016 1:11 PM > *To:* Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]>; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) > <[email protected]> > *Cc:* NVO3 <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on moving forward with a single > encap. > > > > +1. > > > > Besides, IETF already has specified many encapsulations, is it really that > bad having one extra? > > > > Linda > > > > *From:* nvo3 [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Anoop Ghanwani > *Sent:* Friday, July 22, 2016 7:55 AM > *To:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) > *Cc:* NVO3 > *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on moving forward with a single > encap. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Please respond to this email on the NVO3 list by 29th July 2016: > - Given the IETF's mission, should NVO3 move forward on the standards > track with a single encapsulation on the standards track? If not, please > explain your concern in detail. > > > > While the world would be a better place with only one encapsulation, I > think it's better to stick with the original path of allowing the 3 > encapsulations as experimental. > > > > The NVO3 charter says: > > >>> > > Based on these requirements the WG will select, extend, and/or > develop one or more data plane encapsulation format(s). > > >>> > > > > Based on the charter, the WG has gone through the process of accepting to > work on 3 encapsulations. What do we know now that we did not know back > then? > > > > If we were going to progress only a single encapsulation, I think there > would have been more critical feedback and strong suggestions for changing > that "winning" encapsulation to accommodate what the other encapsulations > perceive as their relative strengths. And we risk opening up that > discussion now and delaying progress even more. > > > > Otherwise, not having a standard has not been a hinderance for getting > protocols deployed in the past, and I suspect that if the developers of > these encapsulations care enough, we will see deployments of all of them > regardless of whether or not we progress them within the working group. > > > > Thanks, > > Anoop > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
