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

Thanks Dirk! we'll definitely take a look at them.

Carlos

On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 12:04 +0000, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de wrote:
> 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&pa
> rent=T-REC-Y.3301 and http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-
> Y/recommendation.asp?lang=en&parent=T-REC-Y.3302, 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