I think the draft is OK but I’ve got a few comments below: Section 1: Why are these the use cases considered? I think a better justification of why these use cases are considered representative or even significant will enhance the draft.
Section 3.1: Perhaps add a better definition of vGW Section 4: Is this statement 100% accurate: "Operators no longer need to worry about the constraints of the DC physical network configuration when creating VMs and configuring a virtual network."? Section 4.1: This section is potentially very interesting and perhaps should be fleshed out some more; some of the issues arising from interworking between different technologies are interesting and perhaps worthy of further discussion. However, there are some suggestions that some DCs are highly homogenised in terms of deployed hardware and technology so perhaps also mention this possibility? Section 4:3: "DC Provider operators"? In fact, draft uses both "DC provider" or "DC operator" throughout. Is there a difference? If so, perhaps state the difference. If not, perhaps pick one and use it consistently in the draft? Regards, Femi From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:14 AM To: NVO3 <[email protected]> Subject: [nvo3] WG last call for draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-09 This email begins a two week working group last call for draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-09.txt. Please review the draft and post any comments to the NVO3 working group list. If you have read the latest version of the draft but have no comments and believe it is ready for publication as an Informational RFC, please also indicate so to the WG email list. This working group last call will close on Tuesday 20th September 2016. Best regards Matthew and Sam
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
