Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: (with COMMENT)
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 08 June 2017 12:47 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 9DB5E12EAB5; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 05:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Aer_mNyJueo5; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 05:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 01229129432; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 05:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.2.172] (ip-13-230-239-173.toronto.ca.northamericancoax.com [173.239.230.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v58ClTho093324 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Jun 2017 07:47:31 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host ip-13-230-239-173.toronto.ca.northamericancoax.com [173.239.230.13] claimed to be [10.0.2.172]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (14F89)
In-Reply-To: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF25FD60E8@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 08:47:29 -0400
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "sbanks@encrypted.net" <sbanks@encrypted.net>, "bmwg-chairs@ietf.org" <bmwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv@ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <36C02E8C-9F70-4C3C-9700-BC6897CA188F@nostrum.com>
References: <149672036394.3976.8004729920890920652.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF25FD60E8@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/q6Ul6nSYEzM7_Ac258zpcymgLY0>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 08 Jun 2017 12:47:38 -0000
Hi, thanks for the response. Please see inline: > On Jun 6, 2017, at 10:32 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com> wrote: > > Hi Ben, thanks for your review, please see below... > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com] >> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 11:39 PM >> To: The IESG >> Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv@ietf.org; Sarah Banks; bmwg- >> chairs@ietf.org; sbanks@encrypted.net; bmwg@ietf.org >> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv- >> 03: (with COMMENT) >> >> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: No Objection > ... >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -General: >> >> It seems a bit odd to me to use an IETF stream RFC to describe the >> status of an >> open source project, even when that project is closely related to IETF >> work. >> But I do not object strongly enough to get in the way of publication. > [ACM] > > Although this work is clearly in BMWG's charter, the WG is not quite > at the point where we are ready to write new RFCs. However, we > do have a good collaboration with the several OPNFV projects > doing benchmarking, this one on vSwitches has recommended some > test methods which we will certainly take into account in future > development. > > This draft, and the VSPERF project work in general, and BMWG's > understanding of this topic *all* benefited > from review and comments in BMWG. This is one form of > > "...interaction between standards development in the IETF, > development of running code, and open source efforts in the industry." > from https://www.ietf.org/blog/2017/05/iesg-retreat-3/ > > The interaction between open source efforts and BMWG is > also productive for other drafts; the WG > is almost ready to ship two new specifications > for SDN Controller Benchmarking (worked with the OPNFV Cperf project): > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term/ > It's great to see close collaboration between an open source project and a working group. But I don't see how it follows that it's a good idea to publish project status as an RFC. Especially a project that is moving rapidly. But as I said, I'm not going to get in the way of publication. (I'm not going to make a detailed argument, because others have already done so, and I concede that this seems to fit the WG charter.) > >> >> -3.4: "It is essential to increase the flow timeout time on a vswitch >> before >> conducting any performance tests that do not intend to measure the >> flow setup >> time." >> >> Does this mean to make allowances for the startup characteristics of virtual >> network elements, when physical elements might not have such limitations? That >> seems sort of like optimizing for the test. > [ACM] > This is an accepted aspect of benchmarking, and applies to both > physical and virtual network functions, such as switches and routers. > For example, RFC 2889 says: > " ... The DUT/SUT address aging time SHOULD be configured to be greater than > the period of the learning phase of the test plus the trial duration > plus any configuration time required by the testing device." > See: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2889#section-3 > The learning phase is benchmarked separately. Okay, I am willing to accept that this is common practice. > >> >> -4, figures: >> >> Figure numbers and cross references would be very helpful for this >> section. >> > [ACM] OK, we'll add them. Thanks! > > thanks again, > Al >
- [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-i… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-i… Ben Campbell
- Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-i… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)