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

Dear Carlos and Evangelos,
FWIW the ITU SDN framework document Y.3300 has not been updated but two further recommendations, one on requirements (Y.3301, 2016) and on architecture (Y.3302, 2017) have been published meanwhile to be found at http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y/recommendation.asp?lang=en&parent=T-REC-Y.3301 and http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y/recommendation.asp?lang=en&parent=T-REC-Y.33023302, respectively.
From a first glance at them I think they differ in some aspects (e.g. SDN Layer Architecture positions Management not in parallel to Control as in Fig. 2, but to Application, Control, and Resources ... as ONF in Fig. 3) but IMO it would be enough to mention that other SDOs define slightly modified architectures etc. 

... just my 2 cents   

Best Regards
Dirk 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nfvrg [mailto:nfvrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
Sent: Dienstag, 6. Juni 2017 16:48
To: Evangelos Haleplidis; nfvrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Nfvrg] Research Group Preparation (a.k.a. "Last Call") for draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization

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

> 

_______________________________________________
Nfvrg mailing list
Nfvrg@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg