Re: [Nfvrg] Research Group Preparation (a.k.a. "Last Call") for draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>]

Hi Evangelos,

On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 23:35 +0300, Evangelos Haleplidis wrote:
> Greetings Carlos,
> 
> Nice job with the draft btw.
> 
> Please see responses inline.

Thanks! Please see additional comments inline below.

> 
> Regards,
> Evangelos.
> 
> > > #1. Is there a reason for why the OpenFlow protocol is mentioned
> > > in
> > > the terminology section of the draft? It is used only in the SDN
> > > section and expanded there as well.
> > 
> > [Carlos] We just wanted to expand/explain on all the terms used in
> > the
> > document, but there is no additional reason. Do you think we should
> > skip mentioning it the terminology section?
> > 
> 
> [EH] Well, OpenFlow is an implementation choice mostly. There are a
> number of other solutions for SDN related that people have used. So,
> imho I don't think that it fits on the terminology section for such a
> type of document. 

[Carlos] OK, fair enough. We'll remove it in the next revision.

> 
> > > 
> > > #2. Since you mention both ONF’s and IETF’s architectural view on
> > 
> > SDN,
> > > do you think it makes sense to include ITU’s view on it as well?
> > 
> > [Carlos] That's a godo point. I personally don't know well the
> > details
> > about ITU's view. Is there any public available document that I can
> > check?
> > 
> 
> [EH] ITU's initial view was this reference:
> ITU, "Framework of software-defined networking", ITU Recommendation
> Y.3300, June 2014, <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.3300-201406-I/en>.
> This is from 2014. I'm not sure if an updated or a new version
> exists.

[Carlos] OK, thanks for point it. We'll check it out and see how to
include ITU's view on the draft.

> 
> ...
>  
> > > 
> > > Also, three general comments:
> > > #A. I do agree with Kostas’s earlier mail about a few places
> > > where
> > 
> > the
> > > document is a bit gratuitous.
> > 
> > [Carlos] We'll try to fix that. If you have additional parts where
> > you
> > think we should revise the text in that respect, please let us
> > know.
> > 
> 
> [EH] Well, this is really very minor, but in section 3.6, you mention
> only Openstack for the open source cloud computing software. There
> are a couple more. You could make that bullet more generic and
> reference more open source activites like openstack, or add another
> bullet for an additional example. Just so that you're not limited to
> one example per area.

[Carlos] OK, we'll do that.

> 
> > > 
> > > #B. While this document includes a lot of references from the
> > > standards’ bodies, it is very lacking in references from the
> > 
> > academia.
> > > In truth you have only two. While I agree that this draft
> > > shouldn’t
> > > any exhaustive literacy review, I feel that the document would
> > 
> > greatly
> > > be improved by the inclusion of references to active research on
> > > the
> > > challenge items you have enumerated.
> > 
> > [Carlos] That is a good, but tricky point. We'll evaluate adding
> > more
> > research references in the next revision.
> > 
> 
> [EH] You don't need to be thorough. Just point to a couple of other
> research papers.
> How about this one for a more generic reference to research
> challenges:
> [1] Mijumbi, Rashid, Joan Serrat, Juan-Luis Gorricho, Niels Bouten,
> Filip De Turck, and Raouf Boutaba. "Network function virtualization:
> State-of-the-art and research challenges." IEEE Communications
> Surveys & Tutorials 18, no. 1 (2016): 236-262.

[Carlos] OK. I knew that paper. It is a very good one indeed to
reference. We'll add it and look for others that could fit.

Thanks again!

Carlos

>