Re: [bmwg] Review comments of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnfbench (Luis M. Contreras)
Raphael Vicente Rosa <raphaelvrosa@gmail.com> Thu, 01 August 2019 13:23 UTC
Return-Path: <raphaelvrosa@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1123D12016D for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 06:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hqldO_YPfupJ for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 06:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3164A12015F for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2019 06:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id f17so63161185wme.2 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 06:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ECy+QldJS1s7fRVfdIaDYq6gzBtFnDXuIGoJjaBBfyk=; b=Z3D4Pm9kn/ONCoa+wuIIqtQsjUC6Henm7XeIh5Yu9ukJz3Ut61ssV7g8zn9s2ogQBd Swyn8ricQY8U3tLUrlzYPx/E2fz20najSm4IhJcXjrEo3QWZeS8No5wqdL+euNTdVirx wkEERQS6dwC+o3vW1w/7YaG8v1b4TZf4KRpx6tzEhjcHCZTlUMX3H9n0D4vllaOzQ2RE +MyeKqb3GfWhA/vCpZNV4qAOinblA3Wr626WZMRyhB7xyhrwZFSGvHAl67el5Bhnhen1 Y4wxH/0kSao2K+kYK42ffzAY45za05GRgW2fuYky3IijYK1tY+Gg7LDJUURjosaX9DOm vQNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ECy+QldJS1s7fRVfdIaDYq6gzBtFnDXuIGoJjaBBfyk=; b=NPTVJkDWdO95GfUvK62ccY/qYjFGEbkL27uy5Y41bqrRSqcykG5503DYW4GneBJnOl zPth/zzxO/v+z+hjFkVnRhAaVIvp0eMGhgx6lJikN0gnrmBH2cuow7rm3hwUg/mYj8u3 ej0Y2pkqAMRbmns8g5JyD4q6VrOaOi3CCPUtoWrkB0qvpK86a67427XayxwEuBtP8gt3 fl0KRhMsNL8CgKesdDl67VDaFSrRspfOvpd2gvljCc7BIS1ltj3WzE2WEiaBsvOBx74Y Ra17UYP4EpN0BD1u9rhPCyEAZAbTf9KX4rjn9Q07eItOuXwXFdGUj2O/tk5QaCXfa+rw xxGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVG9go0wlLLAqa+LcPnmNNOoqvarPGqUdbHfS9NYoJDceRPtw9r H/Mw5J2Mo+gKA5uY5BqI4YZC1FA/kCRLZ0QvErz9Obgk
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwUnROhm/xe9KpGU4LTaFKuVS5OPIcYRTbAGBYt/fT6Cj5cCQ0OvkW2WkjzmM0yXBJlQ5vHlgOV678fXKH87E4=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b155:: with SMTP id a82mr64405533wmf.35.1564665785848; Thu, 01 Aug 2019 06:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.83.1564599616.17604.bmwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.83.1564599616.17604.bmwg@ietf.org>
From: Raphael Vicente Rosa <raphaelvrosa@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:22:54 -0300
Message-ID: <CAD-XRrXemqdPHTn2gwBcMN72fmJUiz1=CMUsnRoNE2GPgOWw3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005b9c92058f0e24f7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/j3miHAMyQ-ZyzdpnlMDqHGPRP3E>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Review comments of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnfbench (Luis M. Contreras)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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, 01 Aug 2019 13:23:12 -0000
Luis, thanks a lot for the great review! We appreciate the engagement, it sure will help us clarify and improve the draft content for the next version, a path for the bmwg adoption. Best regards, (The authors) On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:01 PM <bmwg-request@ietf.org> wrote: > Send bmwg mailing list submissions to > bmwg@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > bmwg-request@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > bmwg-owner@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of bmwg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Review comments of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnfbench (Luis M. Contreras) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:33:01 +0200 > From: "Luis M. Contreras" <contreras.ietf@gmail.com> > To: bmwg@ietf.org > Cc: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO > <luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com> > Subject: [bmwg] Review comments of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnfbench > Message-ID: > <CAE4dcxnUdkm=zmtmy+Ve+G= > CFNTAVnasfC6_Oda+yvgxSNxAMg@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi all, > > as committed last week during BMWG session, I have performed a review > of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnfbench. > > These are the comments coming from my review. > > /General comments/ > > ..- it would be good to have some text in the draft indicating how this > benchmarking methodology relates with the activities in ETSI NFV TST > working group > > ..- an special case for benchmarking could be the redundancy. There are > different schemas of redundancy (e.g., VNFs with active / standby VNFCs, > M:1 redundant VNFCs, non-redundant VNFCs, etc). Would the redundancy be > part of the scope of the draft/methodology that you describe? And if so, > how this could be included as part of the descriptors / setup that you > describe? > > ..- Can we in general terms assume that Agents represent active probing > while Monitors represent passive probing? If so, it would be probably good > to make it explicit > > > > /Specific comments/ > > ..- Section 5, bullet on VNF (after Fig. 1): with relation to the VNFCs, > can > be those components tested individually or should them be always tested as > part of the comprehensive VNF? > > ..- Figure 1: the Monitor box, as depicted, it is not too much clear. The > boundaries of the box overlap with the boundaries of VNF component and > Execution environment. This could be done on purpose, but the figure > becomes a bit confusing, at least to me. Additionally, I can see arrows > to/from the agents, but no arrows to/from the monitor. From/to where the > information is send to Monitor box? > > ..- Section 6.1: should it be included information about the kind of VIM, > MANO, etc to use for on-boarding, managing and running the VNF? Should the > NMS of the VNF part of the tests (maybe assisting on the > configuration/collection of information)? Should it be also declared the > usage of VM, containers, etc in the setup? Where? > > ..- Section 6.3.1: should it be included there the duration of the tests? > > ..- Section 6.2.2: the VNF processing / Active metrics, are those > equivalent > to the kind of metrics can be obtained from a PNF? Any difference? If not, > it could be maybe convenient to reflect that fact since same metric > description could be reused by the operators for performing the tests (and > for comparison, as well) > > ..- Section 6.3.2: if the Manager collects all measurements, then it has to > support some kind of interface for information retrieval, hasn?t it? If so, > it could be maybe convenient to reflect it in figure 1 and in the text. > > ..- Section 6.4.3: failure handling can be considered as active or passive > testing? > > ..- Section 8: during the VNF benchmarking, it could be considered the > running of security tests? For instance DDoS, etc. If so, it could be > mentioned. > > > > /Editorial comments/ > > ..- The Agent/Prober and Monitor/Listener bullets should be better aligned, > maybe using different levels of bullets and skipping existing space lines > > ..- section 6.3.2, bullet 1: s/ ? compose the all the permutations ? / ? > compose all the permutations ? > > ..- section 6.4.1, 1st paragraph: s/ ? to mitigateside effects ? / ? to > mitigate side effects ? > > > > I would like to tahnks the authors for the very good document produced so > far. > > > Best regards > > > Luis > > > -- > ___________________________________________ > Luis M. Contreras > contreras.ietf@gmail.com > luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com > Global CTIO unit / Telefonica > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/attachments/20190731/85826251/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > bmwg mailing list > bmwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg > > > ------------------------------ > > End of bmwg Digest, Vol 178, Issue 14 > ************************************* >
- Re: [bmwg] Review comments of draft-rosa-bmwg-vnf… Raphael Vicente Rosa
- Re: [bmwg] Applied review comments (from Luis M. … Raphael Vicente Rosa
- Re: [bmwg] Applied review comments (from Luis M. … Luis M. Contreras