On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
<[email protected]> wrote:
> WG
>
> There was a discussion in the NVO3 WG meeting in Berlin following strong 
> advice from our Area Director that we need to come to a consensus on 
> converging on a common encapsulation. Two sets of questions were asked:
> (1) Should the WG move forward with one standards track encap?
> (2) For a given encap, do you have significant technical objections?
>
> This email relates to the second of these questions. Please refer to the 
> separate email titled “Consensus call on moving forward with single encap” 
> for discussion related to point (1).
>
> We would recommend that those not familiar with RFC 7282 "On Consensus and 
> Humming in the IETF" may wish to read it for a fuller understanding of how 
> the IETF handles challenging consensus decisions and why.
>
> We would like to determine the consensus on the following points on the list 
> (there is a separate thread concerning point (2)):
>
> 1) Does anyone have a significant technical objection to selecting Geneve as 
> the single NVO3 Standards track document?  Please be as concrete and detailed 
> as possible as to your technical objection.
>
> 2) Does anyone have a significant technical objection to selecting VXLAN-GPE 
> as the single NVO3 Standards track document?  Please be as concrete and 
> detailed as possible as to your technical objection.
>
> 3)Does anyone have a significant technical objection to selecting GUE as the 
> single NVO3 Standards track document?  Please be as concrete and detailed as 
> possible as to your technical objection.
>
>
> Please reply to this email thread on the NVO3 list by 29th July 2016.
>
> Please DO NOT use this thread to argue or debate the importance or details of 
> any technical objections that arise.  That can be done in other threads. This 
> thread should be used to state your initial objection. Any objections raised 
> will be summarized in an additional email at the end of this consensus call 
> so that the WG can discuss the results in detail.
>
Hi Matthew and Sam,

Is the email summarizing objections going to be sent out soon?

Thanks,
Tom

> While the list of technical issues has been collected for each encapsulation, 
> the chairs are discussing how to develop an acceptable solution.   The goal 
> is to have an answer before IETF 97.  The chairs will follow up to the list 
> shortly.
>
> 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

Reply via email to