AB,
in the section 2 it is clear:
section 2 draft> This document uses the same terminology as [RFC7365].
IMHO, it means that this draft has same terminology included in the draft as
rfc7365
(i.e., virtual DC is defined in RFC7365).
To be precise, the term “virtual DC” would be as defined in RFC 7365 *if* that
term were used. The virtual DC term is not used in this draft and it’s also
not used in RFC 7365 outside of its definition in section 1.1.
AB> the authors can mention the different terminology or that virtual DC is
not included in the architecture, but is there a reason why
we should not add an information that points to this.
The terminology is not different, but the virtual DC concept is not needed to
describe the NVO3 architecture or the NVO3 framework.
For me as we can have a VLAN defined on a LAN, then we can have vDC on a DC.
Sure, see section 4.3 of the NVO3 use case draft - vDC could be mentioned as a
use case example if a reference to that use case draft is added.
Thanks, --David
From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:20 AM
To: Black, David
Cc: ietf; matthew(_dot_)bocci(_at_)alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com;
nvo3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-nvo3-arch-06.txt> (An Architecture for Data
Center Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3)) to Informational RFC
Hi David,
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Black, David
<david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)com<mailto:david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
David> Virtual DCs are not part of the NVO3 architecture.
but vDC was defined in the document
No it wasn’t - neither the “vDC” acronym nor its “virtual DC” expansion appear
in the NVO3 architecture draft.
in the section 2 it is clear:
section 2 draft> This document uses the same terminology as
[RFC7365].
IMHO, it means that this draft has same terminology included in the draft as
rfc7365 (i.e, virtual DC is defined in RFC7365). It is used in many drafts in
IETF that authors don't like to repeat such similar RFC with similar approach
(even in scientific articles it is great practice to reference related work).
AB> the authors can mention the different terminology or that virtual DC is
not included in the architecture, but is there a reason why we should not add
an information that points to this. For me as we can have a VLAN defined on a
LAN, then we can have vDC on a DC.
Thanks for your replies,
Best Regards
AB