[I2nsf] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-23: (with DISCUSS)

[Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-23: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Lars' DISCUSS, and would have made some of his comments (RAM B/W,
Disk size) be part of the discuss.

Many of these metrics seem somewhat irrelevant / are not the relevant ones that
seem needed.

For example, it's doesn't really matter to me what e.g CPU a device has, what
matters is "can it do X things in Y time?". If a device can pass the required
number of packets per second, I don't care if does this using an Intel
i9-13900KS, or a Juniper Express 5, or a Tomahawk 5, or a marshmallow.

The important metrics should be the PPS vs packet-size vs enables features, not
the hardware that the device uses to do this. For example, my server happily
saturates 2x10GE links when bridging between them, but gets <1.2Gbps when doing
IPSEC and DPI for DLP/URL scanning. The type of RAM/CPU/Disk is irrelevant for
this discussion. If you *do* want to include hardware specs, there are much
more relevant metrics, like the type of NICs, whether they support XDP, what
off-loading they do (checksum, encap, etc),  DMA capabilities, etc.