Re: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:37 AM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> 
> Hi Al,
> 
> > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:57 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alissa,
> > Thanks for your review, please see reply below.
> > Al (for the co-authors)
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 5:53 PM
> >> To: The IESG
> >> Cc: [email protected]; Sarah Banks; bmwg-
> >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> >> Subject: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03:
> >> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > ...
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >> DISCUSS:
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >>
> >> Picking up on the thread that started with the Gen-ART review, I'm not clear on
> >> the position of this document when it comes to repeatability. If all of the
> >> parameters listed in Section 3.3 (assuming they apply) are configured and
> >> documented, is it assumed that the benchmarks will be repeatable and comparable
> >> with hardware implementation benchmarks?
> > [ACM]
> >>>>
> > Of course, it has been the goal of the project to produce
> > repeatable results, and a large set of the parameters
> > believed to be critical was provided so that the benchmarking
> > community could better appreciate the increase in configuration
> > complexity inherent in this work. So, yes, this set was assumed
> > sufficient for the infrastructure in use by the VSPERF project
> > to obtain repeatable results from test-to-test.
> >>>> We could add summary above as a new paragraph in section 3.3.
> >
> > Benchmark Comparability between virtual and physical/hardware
> > implementations of equivalent functions will likely place more
> > detailed and exact requirements on the *testing systems*
> > (in terms of stream generation, algorithms to search
> > for max values, and their configurations of course).
> > This is another area for standardization to appreciate,
> > now that we have a few years testing experience.
> > However, the is a topic for a future draft.
> >
...
> >> I think this needs to be more clear in the document.
> > [ACM]
> > If the >>>paragraph<<< accomplishes that for you,
> > with some minor tweaks to word it less like a reply, let me know.
> 
> I think both of your first two paragraphs above make useful points for
> inclusion in the draft, so if you’re able to write up some text that
> incorporates them, that would resolve my issue.
[ACM] 
OK, the paragraph beginning 
"Benchmark Comparability between virtual and physical/hardware..."
seems to fit best in section 3.1 (Comparison with Physical Network Functions).

Al

> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
...

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