Re: [bmwg] Marius' comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net [was RE: I-D Update]

[Marius Georgescu <[e-mail]>]

Hello Al,

Thank you very much for addressing my comments and taking the time to clarify the aspects I’ve misunderstood. 

Best regards,
Marius

> On Sep 24, 2015, at 11:37, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>  
> From: GEORGESCU LIVIU MARIUS [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 10:40 AM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [bmwg] I-D Update
>  
> Hello Al,
> …
> In the spirit of a draft-a-week, here are my comments for the draft https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net-00.txt <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net-00.txt>.
> Please find attached a txt version. I marked my comments with ###MG .
> [ACM] 
>  
> Hi Marius, thanks for your comments!
>  
> I’m about to submit a revised version with many comments addressed.
>  
> You had a few comments where I would like to reply.
>  
>    ###MG: The draft could benefit from a Terminology Section/Subsection. 
>        
> This is “just” a Considerations draft, so the terminology is less critical
> than the usual Terminology that supports a Methodology.  I think any term
> and definition can be successfully searched if a reader finds it unfamiliar. 
> If there’s a specific set of terms you’d like to see defined, I’ll wager we can 
> reference an existing definition.
>  
>    ...Internal metrics and
>    measurements from Open Source implementations may be the only direct
>    source of performance results in a desired dimension, but
>    corroborating external observations are still required to assure the
>    integrity of measurement discipline was maintained for all reported
>    results.
>  
>    ###MG: Maybe RECOMMENDED(SHOULD) and  MAY should be used here for 
>    Black-Box vs White-Box (Grey-Box) benchmarks.
>  
> We don’t have any RFC2119 requirements in a Considerations draft.
> The overall requirement is to apply scientific methods and I think
> we all accept that.
>  
> Section 4.3:
>    ###MG: I guess this is a generic classification of possible new metrics for VNFs. 
>    Maybe a substructure (taxonomy/bullet list/Subsections) may help better organize the categories.
> OK, done.
>  
> Section 4.4:
>    o  Add a column, Scalability, for use when categorizing benchmarks.
>  
>    o  If using the matrix to report results in an organized way, keep
>       size, capacity, and scale metrics separate from the 3x3 matrix and
>       incorporate them in the report with other qualifications of the
>      results.
>      ###MG: I imagine it's hard to optimize the Synthetic/Detailed Trade-of for the 
>       Benchmark coverage matrix.
>      However, I think Scalability is a very important aspect for VNFs and would go 
>      for the "Add a column" option.  
>  
> I’ve clarified the text here – these aren’t alternatives, the are different 
> use cases for the Matrix.
> OTOH, I didn’t understand your first sentence at all.
>  
>      ###MG: I think a specific example on how to use the matrix could be useful.
>  
> We now have two drafts that have used the Matrix, and I referenced both
> as examples.
>  
> regards,
> Al