[bmwg] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 07 June 2017 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 8D808131491; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
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
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.53.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149687236248.2644.15874239410315728328.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:52:42 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/jgRwqu7_Rl10ZgipuFHSBZ4AGxU>
Subject: [bmwg] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: (with DISCUSS and 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: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 21:52:43 -0000

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: Discuss

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:


Picking up on the thread that started with the Gen-ART review, I'm not clear on
the position of this document when it comes to repeatability. If all of the
parameters listed in Section 3.3 (assuming they apply) are configured and
documented, is it assumed that the benchmarks will be repeatable and comparable
with hardware implementation benchmarks? Or is the position of the document
that the benchmarks are not likely to be repeatable/comparable in some (many?)
cases, given the increase in complexity? Or that more work needs to be done
(outside the specification process) to achieve repeatability? I think this
needs to be more clear in the document.


I understand the debate about the publication of this document as an IETF
consensus RFC. To me it seems valuable to publish and that this item is within
the WG's charter. I think adding the updates necessary to make the document
up-to-date with the Danube 3.0 release as suggested in the thread with Alvaro
would be valuable.