Subject: [nvo3] Comments on draft-kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp-03

From: "Florian Mahr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 17:38:53 +0200

I would like to make some comments on draft-kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp-03.

In section 2 "Terminology" it states:

VN Alias:  A string name for a VN as used by administrators and
      customers to name a specific VN.  A VN Alias is a human-usable
      string that can be listed in contracts, customer forms, email,
      configuration files, etc.  and that can be communicated easily
      vocally (e.g., over the phone).  A VN Name is independent of the
      underlying technology used to implement a VN and will generally
      not be carried in protocol fields of control protocols used in
      virtual networks.  Rather, a VN Alias will be mapped into a VN
      Name where precision is required.

I think, it should state:

VN Alias:  A string name for a VN as used by administrators and
      customers to name a specific VN.  A VN Alias is a human-usable
      string that can be listed in contracts, customer forms, email,
      configuration files, etc.  and that can be communicated easily
      vocally (e.g., over the phone).  A VN Alias is independent of the
      underlying technology used to implement a VN and will generally
      not be carried in protocol fields of control protocols used in
      virtual networks.  Rather, a VN Alias will be mapped into a VN
      Name where precision is required.

In section 2 it states further:

VN ID:  A unique and compact identifier for a VN within the scope of
      a specific NVO3 administrative domain.  It will generally be more
      efficient to carry VN IDs as fields in control protocols than VN
      Aliases.  There is a one-to-one mapping between a VN Name and a VN
      ID within an NVO3 Administrative Domain.  Depending on the
      technology used to implement an overlay network, the VN ID could
      be used as the VN Context in the data plane, or would need to be
      mapped to a locally-significant context ID.

It think, it should state:

VN ID:  A unique and compact identifier for a VN within the scope of
      a specific NVO3 administrative domain.  It will generally be more
      efficient to carry VN IDs as fields in control protocols than VN
      Names.  There is a one-to-one mapping between a VN Name and a VN
      ID within an NVO3 Administrative Domain.  Depending on the
      technology used to implement an overlay network, the VN ID could
      be used as the VN Context in the data plane, or would need to be
      mapped to a locally-significant context ID.

Thanks,
   Florian

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 11:59:05 -0400

What are the specific text changes that you are suggesting?

Thanks,
--David

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Florian Mahr
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:39 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nvo3] Comments on draft-kreeger-nvo3-overlay-cp-03

Thanks,
   Florian

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 13:10:38 -0400

> What are the specific text changes that you are suggesting?

 wdiff shows: "VN Names" and "VN Aliases" swaps:

      vocally (e.g., over the phone).  A VN [-Name-] {+Alias+} is independent of the

I actually think "VN Name" is slightly better above.

      [-Aliases.-]
      {+Names.+}  There is a one-to-one mapping between a VN Name and a VN

I agree that "VN Names" would be better above.

Thomas

---

From: "Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 18:41:16 +0000

Thomas,

I think both the changes Florian suggests are correct (and were probably
the result of some cutting and pasting).

Florian,

Thanks for sending this again, I recall you sent this to me earlier and I
forgot to make the changes.

 - Larry

On 5/31/13 10:10 AM, "Thomas Narten" <[email-masked]> wrote:

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