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]
<mailto:[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
4^th 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 <tel:949-378-7568>
*From:*nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Linda Dunbar
*Sent:* Friday, July 22, 2016 1:11 PM
*To:* Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* NVO3 <[email protected] <mailto:[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]] *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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
