Resending with some edits (post coffee). <WG chair hat on> As asked in the original email, please do provide technical objections to the solutions within the NVo3 WG.
This will enable to form consensus in order to resolve the issues and come up with a solution(s) adopted by WG @IETF. As mentioned by Alia, consensus and decision process will be based on RFC7282. If you haven't read it, please do. </WG chair hat on> <WG chair hat off> Just having 3 in NVo3 doesn't mean we need to have 3 encap types adopted by WG. Informational shouldn't preclude that the drafts will be adopted as is, without addressing issues/requirements/technical objections. As as user, I'd like to see a protocol which is a standard and adopted by the community. This is not because it has won the beauty contest, but meets the requirements of NVo3. If WG cannot zero in on one specific protocol, as I said at the mic, would rather prefer to live with existing protocols like VXLAN, GRE, LISP etc. which are standard/defacto standard protocols. </WG chair hat off> > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
