[bmwg] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03

Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> Thu, 11 May 2017 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66F612EC61; Thu, 11 May 2017 04:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, dromasca@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.50.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149450107581.16728.18142473358782662679@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 04:11:15 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/XqSdh97_m2bBJXOkwbfthAkr8BY>
Subject: [bmwg] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 11:11:16 -0000

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Has Issues

This document describes describes the progress of the Open Platform
for NFV (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance "VSPERF". That
project reuses the BMWG framework and specifications to benchmark
virtual switches implemented in general-purpose hardware. Some
differences with the benchmarking of specialized HW platforms are
identified and they may become work items for BMWG in the future. It's
a well written and clear document, but I have reservations about it
being published as an RFC, and I cannot find coverage for it in the WG
charter. I also have concerns that parts of the methodology used by
OPNFV break the BMWG principles, especially repeatability and
'black-box', and this is not clear enough articulated in the document.
 As I was assigned both OPS-DIR and Gen-ART reviews for this document,
I detailed the concerns in my Gen-ART review, they seem to belong
better there. 

>From an OPS-DIR perspective this document has no issues. If the
concerns in section 6 are addressed and caution is taken to isolate
the SUTs and benchmarking environments from the Internet or
operational intranets, there is no operational impact. If approved it
would be a useful tool for operators to get some information about how
benchmarking of OPNFV project products are being designed.