Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net-04: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for your comments, Ben.
Replies below,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 10:04 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email protected]; Sarah Banks; bmwg-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net-04:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net-04: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=y6we2cyixxo8T0gw-
> idCdkUcxRCVIqNQD8XACYawzNE&s=M3pFjJgySP3CYTuTKkgQtksIkC93L430esVdIusuJy0
> &e=
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dbmwg-2Dvirtual-
> 2Dnet_&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=y6we2cyixxo8T0gw-
> idCdkUcxRCVIqNQD8XACYawzNE&s=Sq70w7CDUjRA3PhtbYWSbXl4czOkUN1MNjvJkSDItRA
> &e=
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I have a few mostly editorial comments:
> 
> - Abstract and Introduction: Missing "the" before "Benchmarking..."
> 
> -Abstract: Will the paragraph about new version history stay in the
> RFC?
[ACM] 
no, the version history usually goes, too.

> 
> -1: Much of this section, especially the 2nd paragraph, reads like a
> commercial, or a marketing white paper. I'm not going to put this in the
> way of publication, but an IETF RFC should generally take a more neutral
> tone. It's enough to acknowledge that people are doing (or plan to do)
> NFV.
> 
> -2: Language of the form of "BMG will consider" will quickly become
> dated. Consider something to the effect of "At the time of this writing,
> BMG is considering/plans to consider..."
[ACM] 
OK, that's fine.
> 
> Can you offer a definition or citation for "bare metal"?
[ACM] 
I first read this term in the context of hypervisor categories,
where Type 1 runs directly on the host hardware, called native or bare metal.
Type 2 is a hosted Hypervisor, running on the host OS (e.g., VBox).

Wikipedia provides this early citation:
Popek, Gerald J.; Goldberg, Robert P. (1974). "Formal requirements for virtualizable third generation architectures". Communications of the ACM. 17 (7): 412–421. doi:10.1145/361011.361073. Retrieved 2015-03-01.

"bare metal" has come to mean the compute hardware, 
a non-virtualized compute environment,
following acceptance of these hypervisor categories.
> 
> "Also,  benchmarking combinations of physical and virtual devices and
> functions in a System Under Test.": Sentence fragment.
[ACM] 
will fix
> 
> - 4.2, first paragraph, last sentence: Can you offer a citation for the
> 4x3 matrix?
> :
 [ACM] 
The 3x4 matrix was first developed in this document, by the BMWG.

The original 3x3 matrix goes back to ANSI X3.102 Standard,
"User-Oriented Data Communications Framework", in the 1980s.

Someone from NTIA/ITS gave a talk including this matrix at IETF-38,
in the RTFM WG (possibly Neal Seitz):
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/38/ops/rtfm-2/sld014.htm

I'll add a citation for the 3x3 Matrix.


_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg