Hi Lothar, On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Reith, Lothar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Alia, > > > > I fully support your approach. I am strongly in favor of moving forward > with one standards track encap. > > > > May be it would be an approach to try and agree on a handful of criteria, > such as extensibility, backwards compatibility with VXLAN and/or NVGRE, > number of running code, ease of hardware implementation (evidenced by > number of running hardware code), interoperability with VXLAN/NVGRE, > Security, Cost in terms of protocol overhead, Cost in terms of scarce > numbering resources, interoperability with legacy deployments in the field, > support by deployed control planes, and yes: Simplicity (the opposite of > complexity). > Thanks for your feedback and joining in the conversation. I've been trying to ask from the perspective of technical objects for a reason that a particular approach CAN NOT solve the problem. This ties back to how and why the IETF does consensus (see RFC 7282). > Did I miss any important category? > > > > One could agree on the categories, agree on a process to rank the 3 > candidate protocols – e.g. identify the best and the worst by the number > and severity of objections in that category, the third is in the middle. > I suspect that a design team approach will be needed to work rapidly and try for a fair evaluation of the problems with each one. > The final rank would be average of the ranks per category. That one should > be promoted to standards track. > I'm a bit twitchy about using averages - (average of 6 foot tall and 2 foot tall is 4 foot tall - but not helpful). I'm happy to see discussion about how this decision can be made. > One could consider flipping a coin to decide the rank in a category – but > only in a contentious situation between 2 of the 3 candidates. > I would strongly prefer to avoid flipping a coin :-) Regards, Alia > Lothar > > > > > > > > *Von:* nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] *Im Auftrag von *Alia Atlas > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 26. Juli 2016 22:05 > *An:* Joe Touch <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Tom Herbert <[email protected]>; Michael Smith (michsmit) < > [email protected]>; [email protected]; Matthew Bocci <[email protected]>; > Paul Quinn <[email protected]>; Dino Farinacci <[email protected]>; Jesse > Gross <[email protected]>; Larry Kreeger <[email protected]> > *Betreff:* Re: [nvo3] Consensus call on encap proposals > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7/26/2016 12:42 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > > ... > > > > The question is: > > > > (1) Should the WG move forward with one standards track encap? > > > > I've heard a lot of concern that we just can't do it, that it's too late, > etc. > > > I don't think it's ever "too late", but I also don't see consensus forming > either. > > > > It may be that many folks are recovering from IETF and not responding yet. > > > > ... > > We can always flip a coin - if the solutions are technically equivalent > and so is the > > support. > > > That defines "random", not "consensus". > > > > It's not a preferred way - but it's a way of breaking a deadlock. > > Of course, the WG would have to have consensus on that being the decision > process. > > Take a read through RFC 7282. I keep praising it because it gives really > good perspectives. > > > > > > > > Joe > > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
