Marc, An updated draft would be excellent -before Thursday, preferably.
Thanks, Alia On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:01 AM, LASSERRE, MARC (MARC) < [email protected]> wrote: > Alia, > > I have replied and suggested some minor edits to address Linda and Lucy's > comments. I have suggested to be protocol agnostic rather than giving > specific examples in the multi-homing case. > Some of Linda's comments have been discussed at length in the past and > there was clear WG consensus that the framework draft addressed NVO3's > problem. > > Let me know if you want me to post a revised draft based on these minor > edits and some other suggested edits from other IETF reviewers received > last week prior to next week IESG review. > > Regards, > Marc > > ------------------------------ > *From:* nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] * On Behalf Of *Alia Atlas > *Sent:* Monday, June 02, 2014 8:59 PM > > *To:* Thomas Narten > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; Linda Dunbar > *Subject:* Re: [nvo3] Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-framework-06.txt> > (Framework for DC Network Virtualization) to Informational RFC > > Thomas, > > The NVO3 Framework draft is in IETF Last Call, which isn't precisely > stalled. > It is true that Linda and Lucy have raised some concerns about it. > > I have not yet heard from the WG chairs or authors whether the desired > changes > have been previously discussed and had consensus determined in the WG. > Linda indicated that her > comments had already been discussed on the nvo3 mailing list. Lucy is > requesting that different > technology be indicated as examples - perhaps to give a sense of future > possible solutions to the > readers of the draft. > > If there is WG consensus to make a few minor edits, that can be done > before the > IESG review next week. It is on the next telechat, so I would appreciate > speed in > resolving the minor comment. > > Regards, > Alia > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Thomas Narten <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've followed the discussion on this thread and want to go back to >> something folk may have forgotten. >> >> More than a year ago, the WG made a considered and conscious decision >> to "ship" the framework documemnt more or less "as is" and start work >> on a followup architecure document. It was known and expected that the >> architecture document would become the focus of work moving forward >> and that substantive additions/changes would go there. Even if it >> meant the framework document would be less complete. >> >> Sadly, it has been more than a year since that decision was made, yet >> the framework document appears stalled and unable to get >> published. I'll note that the problem statement document to which the >> framework is a companion, has been languishing in the RFC editor queue >> for almost a year now, blocked on a normative reference to the >> definitions in the framework document. >> >> FWIW, I think the framework is good enough to publish more-or-less as >> is. Or more to the point, there just isn't energy to make significant >> changes to the document given that the focus of the WG has long since >> moved to the architecture document. >> >> If folk have substantive issues with the framework, I'd strongly >> suggest first looking at the architecture >> (draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-01.txt) and seeing whether their concern exists >> there, and of so, whether the archictecture document would be a better >> place to address the concern. >> >> Thomas >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
