Subject: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:52:43 +0100

There have been a number of requests for the WG to adopt draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt as a working group draft. There has also been some discussion on the list and in Atlanta as to whether VM mobility requirements and problem statement issues should be addressed in a stand alone draft or as a part of the existing problem statement. There are also a number of other drafts addressing this issue, so if draft-rekhter is adopted as a stand alone working group document, then that will provide the base working group document into which any additional text would be added.

In order to help the chairs determine how to progress on this issue, please can you indicate to the list:

 *   Do you support adoption of this draft as-is (yes/no)?
 *   If no, would you support adoption of this draft with changes, and if so, what (e.g. more Layer 3 content)?
 *   If no, should all of the VM mobility problem statement be added to the NVO3 problem statement draft?

Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each author and contributor.
If you are on the NVO3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

This call for consensus will close on Thursday 13th December 2012.

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

---

From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:24:06 +0100

Support as is as a co-author

From: <Bocci>, "Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Thursday 29 November 2012 18:52
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

---

From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:37:44 +0000

Yes, I support it as-is, as a co-author. I am not aware of any IPRs related to this draft.

-Ali

From: <Bocci>, "Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:52 AM
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:43:29 +0000

Support adoption as is as a co-author, not aware of IPR.

From: <Bocci>, "Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:52 PM
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:51:23 -0900

So far it seems that the majority of supporters are co-authors,
which may not in fact be the case, but holy cow, this is a great
argument for keeping the number of people on the authors list
down to a handful.

At any rate I think the document is a fine starting point and will
need much work.  I can't quite see the point of the "support
this draft with changes" option.  There are working group processes
to change documents and trying to get consensus on something in a
document before it's even adopted doesn't seem to me to be likely
to improve documents but does seem likely to me to mislead people
(or encourage people who've got misconceptions to hang onto those
misconceptions) about what "working group adoption" actually means.

I expect (and hope) that the document will be nearly entirely
different by the time it gets through WG last call, and I support
its adoption in its current form.

Melinda

---

From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:58:12 +0000

I support adopting the draft as WG document and hope to see my early comments and suggestions to be addressed in next version.

Here is my view why we need a standard draft for VM mobility.

NVO3 problem statement is an information draft and focuses on the problems in current DC that blocks the new potential services in general. This draft is a standard track draft, it states out VM mobility related issues and standardize some rules in supporting the VM mobility. The latter is very helpful in the solution development. We may have more rules as we explore the solutions. Therefore, we need a place to hold all the related rules.

Lucy

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:53 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:59:12 -0500

My preference would be for including this problem description into the 
overall problem statement draft.  Having a multiplicity of problem 
drafts, each repeating part of what others say, emphasizing some new 
information, and potentially disagreeing with each other on other 
points, seems a recipe for trouble.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

On 11/29/2012 12:52 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote:
> There have been a number of requests for the WG to adopt
> draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt as a working group draft.
> There has also been some discussion on the list and in Atlanta as to
> whether VM mobility requirements and problem statement issues should be
> addressed in a stand alone draft or as a part of the existing problem
> statement. There are also a number of other drafts addressing this
> issue, so if draft-rekhter is adopted as a stand alone working group
> document, then that will provide the base working group document into
> which any additional text would be added.
>
> Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that
> applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
> compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
> more details).
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to
> this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft
> will not be adopted until a response has been received from each author
> and contributor.
> If you are on the NVO3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or
> contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any
> IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nvo3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
>

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:56:57 -0800

I support it as-is, as a co-author. I am not aware of any IPRs related to t
his draft.

Yakov.

> --===============4714608224764060990==
> Content-Language: en-US
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> 	boundary="_000_CCDD516B3A1B8matthewboccialcatellucentcom_"
> 
> --_000_CCDD516B3A1B8matthewboccialcatellucentcom_
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> There have been a number of requests for the WG to adopt draft-rekhter-nvo3=
> -vm-mobility-issues-03.txt as a working group draft. There has also been so=
> me discussion on the list and in Atlanta as to whether VM mobility requirem=
> ents and problem statement issues should be addressed in a stand alone draf=
> t or as a part of the existing problem statement. There are also a number o=
> f other drafts addressing this issue, so if draft-rekhter is adopted as a s=
> tand alone working group document, then that will provide the base working =
> group document into which any additional text would be added.
> 
> In order to help the chairs determine how to progress on this issue, please=
>  can you indicate to the list:
> 
> 
>  *   If no, would you support adoption of this draft with changes, and if s=
> o, what (e.g. more Layer 3 content)?
>  *   If no, should all of the VM mobility problem statement be added to the=
>  NVO3 problem statement draft?
> 
> Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies t=
> o this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF=
>  IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to th=
> is email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will n=
> ot be adopted until a response has been received from each author and contr=
> ibutor.
> If you are on the NVO3 WG email list but are not listed as an author or con=
> tributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR t=
> hat has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
> 
> --_000_CCDD516B3A1B8matthewboccialcatellucentcom_
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> <html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:=
>  space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div style=3D"color: rgb(0=
> , 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; "><font face=3D=
> "Calibri,sans-serif">There have been a number of requests for the WG to ado=
> pt&nbsp;<span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobili=
ty-issues-03.txt as a working group draft. There has also been some discuss=
> ion on the list and in Atlanta as to whether VM mobility requirements and p=
> roblem statement issues should be addressed in a stand alone draft or as a =
> part of the existing problem statement. There are also a number of other dr=
> afts addressing this issue, so if draft-rekhter is adopted as a stand alone=
>  working group document, then that will provide the base working group docu=
> ment into which any additional text would be added.</span></font></div><div=
>  style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size:=
>  14px; "><font face=3D"Calibri,sans-serif"><span style=3D"white-space: pre-=
> wrap;"><br></span></font></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-fami=
> ly: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; "><font face=3D"Calibri,sans-seri=
> f"><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">In order to help the chairs deter=
> mine how to progress on this issue, please can you indicate to the list:</s=
> pan></font></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, s=
> ans-serif; font-size: 14px; "><font face=3D"Calibri,sans-serif"><span style=
> =3D"white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></font></div><ul style=3D"color: rgb=
> (0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; "><li><font f=
> ace=3D"Calibri,sans-serif"><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">Do you su=
> pport adoption of this draft as-is (yes/no)?</span></font></li><li><font fa=
> ce=3D"Calibri,sans-serif"><span style=3D"white-space: pre-wrap;">If no, wou=
> ld you support adoption of this draft with changes, and if so, what (e.g. m=
> ore Layer 3 content)?</span></font></li><li><span style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0,=
>  0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal;=
>  font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; ">If no, should all of the VM =
> mobility problem statement be added to the NVO3 problem statement draft?</s=
> pan></li></ul><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans=
> -serif; font-size: 14px; "><span style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:=
>  Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: nor=
> mal; text-decoration: none; "><br></span></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, =
> 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; "><div style=3D"f=
> ont-family: Calibri; font-size: medium; "><font face=3D"Calibri,sans-serif"=
> >Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that&nbsp;</f=
> ont><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">applies to this draf=
> t, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in&nbsp;</span><span style=3D"font=
> -family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 39=
> 79, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).</span></div><div style=3D"font-f=
> amily: Calibri; font-size: medium; "><font face=3D"Calibri,sans-serif">If y=
> ou are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond&nbsp;</fo=
> nt><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">to this email whether=
>  or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The&nbsp;</span><font face=3D"Ca=
> libri,sans-serif">draft will not be adopted until a response has been recei=
> ved from each&nbsp;</font><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; =
> ">author and contributor.</span></div><div style=3D"font-family: Calibri; f=
> ont-size: medium; "><font face=3D"Calibri,sans-serif">If you are on the NVO=
> 3 WG email list but are not listed as an author&nbsp;</font><span style=3D"=
> font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">or contributor, then please explicitly =
> respond only if you are aware&nbsp;</span><span style=3D"font-family: Calib=
> ri, sans-serif; ">of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance=
>  with IETF&nbsp;</span><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">r=
> ules.</span></div></div><div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Cal=
> ibri; font-size: medium; "><span style=3D"font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;=
>  "><br></span></div><div><font face=3D"Calibri,sans-serif">This call for co=
> nsensus will close on&nbsp;Thursday&nbsp;13th December 2012.</font></div><d=
> iv><font face=3D"Calibri,sans-serif"><br></font></div><div style=3D"color: =
> rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium; "><span style=3D"fon=
> t-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">Best regards</span></div><div style=3D"col=
> or: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium; "><span style=3D=
> "font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><br></span></div><div style=3D"color: =
> rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium; "><span style=3D"fon=
> t-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">Matthew and Benson</span></div></body></ht=
> ml>
> 
> --_000_CCDD516B3A1B8matthewboccialcatellucentcom_--
> 
> --===============4714608224764060990==
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> --===============4714608224764060990==--

---

From: Ning So <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:21:09 -0800 (PST)

Support WG Adoption.

Ning

________________________________
 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:52 AM
Subject: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:23:08 +0000

I support the adoption as-is

Irrespectively Yours,

John

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:53 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

---

From: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:32:46 +0000

Support WG adoption.

Linda

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

---

From: "LASSERRE, MARC (MARC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:38:54 +0100

Support as is.

Marc

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 6:53 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

---

From: Paul Unbehagen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:14:07 -0700

Support
--
Paul Unbehagen

On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:38 PM, "LASSERRE, MARC (MARC)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> There have been a number of requests for the WG to adopt draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt as 
>   a working group draft. There has also been some discussion on the list and in 
>   Atlanta as to whether VM mobility requirements and problem statement issues 
>   should be addressed in a stand alone draft or as a part of the existing 
>   problem statement. There are also a number of other drafts addressing this 
>   issue, so if draft-rekhter is adopted as a stand alone working group document, 
>   then that will provide the base working group document into which any 
>   additional text would be added.
> 
> In order to help 
>   the chairs determine how to progress on this issue, please can you indicate to 
>   the list:
> 
> Do you 
>     support adoption of this draft as-is (yes/no)?
> If no, 
>     would you support adoption of this draft with changes, and if so, what (e.g. 
>     more Layer 3 content)?
> If no, should all of the VM mobility problem statement be added to the NVO3 problem statement draft?
>

---

From: Mach Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:22:02 +0000

Support as-is.

Best regards,
Mach

发件人: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
发送时间: 2012年11月30日 1:53
收件人: [email-masked]
主题: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

---

From: "Guyingjie (Yingjie)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:22:17 +0000

Support this draft be adopted as WG item.

Best Regards
Gu Yingjie

发送时间: 2012年11月30日 乐乐1:53

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:17:17 +0000

Support adoption as is.

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:53 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nvo3] Consensus call and IPR check on draft-rekhter-nvo3-vm-mobility-issues-03.txt

Best regards

Matthew and Benson

---

From: Sam Aldrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:16:47 -0800

Read this draft, I would support adoption of the document as WG draft, as is.

-sam
On Nov 29, 2012, at 9:52 AM, "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Do you support adoption of this draft as-is (yes/no)?
> If no, would you support adoption of this draft with changes, and if so, what (e.g. more Layer 3 content)?

---

From: Doug Hanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:43:30 -0800

support