Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bmwg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think this is a variation on the issue that Alissa calls out, but I'm having a hard time reconciling: It's unlikely that the virtual switch will be the only application running on the System Under Test (SUT), so CPU utilization, Cache utilization, and Memory footprint should also be recorded for the virtual implementations of internetworking functions. ...with... Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box" basis, relying solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT. Please add text that clarifies how the metrics that 3.1 says should be recorded in section 3.1 relate to benchmarking.