Re: [Nfvrg] Review of draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization-03
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Mon, 29 May 2017 16:40 UTC
Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: nfvrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nfvrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109AA129AD4
for <nfvrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2017 09:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 CGEJPTGy4Yqd for <nfvrg@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 29 May 2017 09:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com
[IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d])
(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 4094812778E
for <nfvrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2017 09:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id e127so67693109wmg.1
for <nfvrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2017 09:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references
:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=oxAWNEyGH8oC97i7BGSqtsNCMmF6ObkRVFbpzIaQwvs=;
b=NrqK/8aL5A3vg3LROOlOQvBXNT6V+RO4dcnb0u/YlX5mFGgrxV+sKc4CNfYsZyQdbC
OAeMG6cR6XTxXhFedG+77UBLrhH9+IaN5vH4s6PIxqSoOVOBl0HPUFmVfCBRXL4Nsjm6
3t3sF1+WzBhrH8o5VZTKMILKINaVy25ssTUCh0ji7zPMHS2LU5H/fXQVenAjeSwYlTi6
kUSottlrdLUvZ6LaKCcMmnCVWwOWym7xXcVQVKjILXg//LOiQdjniq4r0C6ZMRf5/w+P
ncc/oRm4VqZ+0HJjLEbN2jwkxklYBE2l1udCa/WSH6hgzs9kV4s7+vLzh2VbDECkOaFZ
xUVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date
:in-reply-to:references:organization:mime-version
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=oxAWNEyGH8oC97i7BGSqtsNCMmF6ObkRVFbpzIaQwvs=;
b=fRxjbrndjCFT455MlfFB70bBYf1jLs356bW9zr7l0cIm3paZNlZYIC7b3MKMAzMe5f
J34lNSomj35l9ilRpw9Wu6ChpbfGSRV22zQv0u6GOBoyHGSxoVi92KX1sOAf39FCOstr
xVJYf9uYu93HRrN4WzBCAIegvwMuV3OOVxiNYUXPYLzxiJZXX9SBv0BPWFIFNL4GvXnm
5dbTqA/6/ZI9AWstVTA5ctkmkhXAhxAWxqHRABTXLXR3XEVCcRZ/VW87um6/CzgiRtNs
HeQ0KADQo8ZWGDm3h42UeDjC03a3WxxV7FtFJ4YyBt/j0TQiLqtKj+TIW0iguK7tCgum
ovqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDbwr4pNwRrRhftf62Tlt5E9y+7CQSg2ElUCqTcLXsfk8QVVBKi
Max2hfH0dk0/Gxwd
X-Received: by 10.223.177.215 with SMTP id r23mr13011624wra.97.1496076005701;
Mon, 29 May 2017 09:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acorde ([2001:720:410:1010:d681:d7ff:fe28:350b])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y3sm25684524wmh.21.2017.05.29.09.40.04
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256);
Mon, 29 May 2017 09:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1496076004.3150.23.camel@it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
To: Kostas Pentikousis <kostas.pentikousis@travelping.com>,
draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization@ietf.org
Cc: 'nfvrg' <nfvrg@irtf.org>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 18:40:04 +0200
In-Reply-To: <009901d2bf5d$b3b5b720$1b212560$@travelping.com>
References: <279467219.741330.1486138585009.JavaMail.zimbra@tpip.net>
<1489250720.4666.11.camel@cjbc.eu>
<009901d2bf5d$b3b5b720$1b212560$@travelping.com>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfvrg/mg1wTzlW6xgHYEGdQi8CAfN-8A4>
Subject: Re: [Nfvrg] Review of draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization-03
X-BeenThere: nfvrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Network Function Virtualization Research Group \(NFVRG\) discussion
list" <nfvrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nfvrg>,
<mailto:nfvrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nfvrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nfvrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfvrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfvrg>,
<mailto:nfvrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:40:10 -0000
Hi Kostas,
Apologies for my belated reply. I've been fully devoted to some H2020
EU project duties and I missed your e-mail.
Thanks again for your feedback. Please see comments inline below.
On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 15:53 +0200, Kostas Pentikousis wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> > Thanks again for your very useful comments. Please, find below some
> > answers inline on how we have incorporated/considerated your
> > comments
>
> My pleasure. I will look into -05 more carefully, but a very cursory
> look indicates a missing pointer to RFC 7426 in Section 2
> (Terminology), as this is where the definitions of AP/CP/FP/MP
> originate from. Perhaps s/ and the IETF [RFC7665]/ and the IETF
> [RFC7426] [RFC7665]?
[Carlos] OK. We'll do.
>
> In general, Section 3 lacks a summary/conclusion section, imo. One
> idea would be to use e.g. Fig. 4 as a reference and map the open
> source efforts (sec. 3.6) using a matrix, plus some glue text that
> points to the challenges introduced in Section 4.
[Carlos] Good comment. We'll come with something along those lines in
-06.
>
> A couple of other editorial comments below:
>
> Section 3.1, "To date, ETSI NFV is by far the most accepted NFV
> reference framework and architectural footprint
> [etsi_nvf_whitepaper_2]." I'm not sure how this sentence will age,
> and I'm not sure if the reference to the whitepaper fits with the
> claim ("most accepted"). I find the sentence a bit gratuitous anyway.
> Ditto in Section 3.2, "The most visible of the SDN protocol stacks is
> the OpenFlow protocol".
[Carlos] It is true that this statements reflect current status, and
might not age well. However, the document reflects indeed the current
picture and this might change. We'll try anyway to rewrite a bit the
text to address your concerns.
>
> Some further nits:
>
> s/resource model of the underneath network/resource model of the
> underlying network
>
> SDN (the acronym) is defined in a few places, I guess due to the
> independent author contributions.
[Carlos] Thanks. We'll fix them.
Kind regards,
Carlos
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kostas
- [Nfvrg] Review of draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-v… Kostas Pentikousis
- Re: [Nfvrg] Review of draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-netwo… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Nfvrg] Review of draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-netwo… Kostas Pentikousis
- Re: [Nfvrg] Review of draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-netwo… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [Nfvrg] Review of draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-netwo… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano