IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Nfvrg] Review of draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization-03

Kostas Pentikousis <kostas.pentikousis@travelping.com> Thu, 27 April 2017 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <kpentikousis@tpip.net>
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 072D3129516 for <nfvrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 FFgJpVYogGtu for <nfvrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tpip.net (mail.tpip.net [92.43.49.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A10A7127B73 for <nfvrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 06:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office.tpip.net (unknown [153.92.65.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88B074F404; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:53:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by office.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E88EA2D3F; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:53:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from office.tpip.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (office.tpip.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id JcMpsvXjecUq; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:53:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by office.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE1BA2D41; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:53:58 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at tpip.net
Received: from office.tpip.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (office.tpip.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id MuomPwXP3ZyG; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:53:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from office.tpip.net (office.tpip.net [153.92.65.89]) by office.tpip.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D2BA2D3F; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:53:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Kostas Pentikousis <kostas.pentikousis@travelping.com>
To: =?utf-8?Q?'Carlos_Jes=C3=BAs_Bernardos_Cano'?= <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, <draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization@ietf.org>
Cc: "'nfvrg'" <nfvrg@irtf.org>
References: <279467219.741330.1486138585009.JavaMail.zimbra@tpip.net> <1489250720.4666.11.camel@cjbc.eu>
In-Reply-To: <1489250720.4666.11.camel@cjbc.eu>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:53:56 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <009901d2bf5d$b3b5b720$1b212560$@travelping.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.7.0_GA_1659 (MobileSync - Outlook/16.0 (16.0.7870.6521; C2R; x86))
Thread-Index: AQGEd782CB46NoJVhZpCbjEMaZSN6gNhVyL7olj7NqA=
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization-03
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nfvrg/srrjLhbOEhmp9LDri88BfUOQG2U>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:06:39 -0700
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: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:54:04 -0000

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]?

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. 

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".

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.

Best regards,

Kostas

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email