[Sdnp] updated SDN problem statement draft
ping at pingpan.org
Tue Mar 13 10:58:37 EDT 2012
Thanks! Got an editor. This is what you get when typing between design
review meetings... Sorry about that!
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Anton Ivanov <
anton.ivanov at kot-begemot.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/03/12 13:58, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
>> Please review and send us comments/feedback.
>> SDNP mailing list
>> SDNP at lucidvision.com
> Page 5 - migrate, not "mirage" in 3rd paragraph. A few other language
> niggles on that page as well. I will try to get around to send a proper
> edit set later this week.
> Page 9, paragraph 7. "may", not will. It will if it needs to. If it can
> re-route cleanly, why should it bother telling that to applications?
> Suggested improvement to use cases - they will look "leaner", "cleaner"
> and cause fewer arguments if they start with an intro which maps out the
> semantics - what is the Application (in the SDN sense) in each particular
> case, who talks to the controller, who arbitrates, etc.
> SDNP mailing list
> SDNP at lucidvision.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SDNP