Re: Alvaro Retana's Abstain on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: (with COMMENT)

Hi Alvaro,
thanks for your review, please see reply below.
Al (for the co-authors)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 9:51 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email protected]; Sarah Banks; bmwg-
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Alvaro Retana's Abstain on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03:
...
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I don't see the value of publishing this document as an RFC, specially
> because it reflects the progress of the VSPERF project "through the Brahmaputra
> (second) release" -- which would make this document obsolete instantly since
> the project is already working on their Danube (fourth) release.  
[ACM] 
The VSPERF development efforts during the Colorado and Danube
releases are almost entirely focused on the features for 
the VSPERF testing tool. Maybe one or two test specifications have 
been added to the LTD, but the vast majority are the same in
Danube 3.0, so the tests described this document are still 
completely relevant. 

Instead of developing more test specifications, the control of 
three more/new traffic generators has been incorporated in the 
VSPERF tool. Also, the fd.io VPP has been added as a testing
possibility in Danube, in addition to the latest versions of OVS.
But none of these developments affect what the WG agreed in 
the draft.

The WG agreed to "freeze" the updates at Brahmaputra for practical
purposes. The authors would agree to add the few new tests in 
section 5 that would update this draft to Danube 3.0, and 
increase its relevance, if that seems reasonable and valuable
to all.



> I appreciate
> the fact that the WG has found the discussions around this document useful and
> that the methodologies created are being referenced elsewhere.
> 
> Because the WG/Chairs/Responsible AD find value in publication I am not going
> to stand in the way; I am then ABSTAINing.
>