Respect your advice. However, some wording in the proposed charter are too
ambiguous, is it the intent?
"An NVO3 solution (known here as a Data Center Virtual Private Network
(DCVPN)) is a VPN that is viable across a scaling range of a few thousand VMs
several million VMs running on greater than 100K physical servers."
Do you mean "one VPN across a scaling range of million VMs"? or many VPNs
combined to scale range of million VMs?
I don't find the text ambiguous at all. You might disagree with what it says ("a
VPN"), but you can't claim it is ambiguous.
"NVO3 will consider approaches to multi-tenancy that reside at the
network layer rather than using traditional isolation mechanisms that rely on
underlying layer 2 technology (e.g., VLANs)"
"network layer" can mean different things to different people. Why not simply
say "NV03 will consider approaches to multi-tenancy which do not rely on Layer
There are also layers above the network layer. The charter rules them out of
scope. This is good.
Stewart has clarified that "network layer" includes IP and MPLS, and that it is
the bit of the hourglass that we all know as the network layer.
" The NVO3 WG will determine which types of service are needed by
typical DC deployments"
Data center provide Computing and storage services. Network facilitates the
connection among Computing entities and storage entities.
Why does NV03 WG need to determine what types of "services" are needed by
typical DC deployment?
Do you mean "NV03 WG will consider network deployment by typical DC"?
I think s/services/connectivity services/ might address this issue. Although the
examples cited (but not quoted by you) do tend to give a strong hint.