[bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: (with COMMENT)
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 08 June 2017 12:09 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 DF8A0127078; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 05:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv@ietf.org, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, sbanks@encrypted.net, bmwg@ietf.org, dromasca@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.53.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149692375682.25676.2403861848456561410.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 05:09:16 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/dCw7ZIatNg1RqOO4IovzTeehr-U>
Subject: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: (with COMMENT)
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, 08 Jun 2017 12:09:17 -0000
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For sure, the topic of benchmarking of benchmarking virtual switches is important in the industry today. Technical Summary: This draft summarizes the progress of the OPNFV project on virtual switch performance characterization, and notes that the OPNFV work builds upon the IETF work, particularly the BMWG work within IETF, with an emphasis on RFC2544. I like the cross SDO aspects of this draft, as mentioned in the shepherd writeup: The document itself was reviewed in ETSI NFV, and used as a reference by at least one of the TST WG and IFA WF specifications (2 references in total). The document has also been reviewed by several individuals from the OPNFV community, and NFVRG (IRTF) is aware of the draft. I would have preferred to see a document that specifies "benchmarking virtual switches" instead of "benchmarking virtual switches in OPNFV". In other words, just looking at the abstract, this is completely different to write: This memo describes the way to benchmark virtual switch performance. The specifications are based on the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance "VSPERF". As opposed to: This memo describes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance "VSPERF". Regarding the "describes the progress of", sentences such as ... - This project intends to build ... - Therefore, this memo begins to describe the additional considerations ... - This memo summarizes the progress of the Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV) project on virtual switch performance characterization, "VSPERF", through the Brahmaputra (second) release [BrahRel]. ... lead me to think that this is unfinished work, or that work will anyway have to be updated. Again, looking at the scope: The primary purpose and scope of the memo is to inform the industry of work-in-progress that builds on the body of extensive BMWG literature and experience, and describe the extensions needed for benchmarking virtual switches. I was hoping that the primary purpose and scope of the memo would be the specifications of the virtual switch benchmarking, not to inform about the work-in-progress. Reading further, I see text such as: Specifications to be included in future updates of the LTD include: o [RFC3918] Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking o [RFC4737] Packet Reordering Metrics or When considering characteristics important to "telco" network functions, we must begin to consider additional performance metrics. or Tests have been (or will be) designed to collect the metrics below: On one side, I appreciate that you're publishing what you learned, which should lead up to revisions in the future. On the other side, I've not been used to that approach in BMWG. I'll trust the responsible AD regarding the publication of this document as a kind of intermediary document. I believe the document would be a better flow (and that some concerns would disappear) if it would have the following structure - benchmarking virtual switches is key in the industry today - there are the virtual switches benchmarking specification today - we worked on this with OPNFV (VSPERF). Great collaboration. - this is a complex and evolving field: compared to RFC 2544, we learn that ... we realize that this is work in progress ... - future plan: we will need to integrate more "stuff" in the benchmark, such as RFC3918, RFC4737, additional perf metrics, you-name-it - we'll work with OPNFV (and other groups) on this future plan. Editorial - Section 3.4. Flow timeout. You mean the active timeout, section 2.2.23 in RFC 6645? Should this section refer to RFC6645, or RFC 5470 (section 5.1.1)? - In addition to this, the LTD also re-uses the terminology defined by: o [RFC2285] Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices o [RFC5481] Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement RFC5481 is already mentioned in the previous bullet list (The base performance tests in the LTD are based on the pre-existing specifications developed by BMWG to test the performance of physical switches. These specifications include). So hopefully, it re-uses the terminology, right?
- [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benoit Claise
- Re: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)