Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: (with COMMENT)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 8:47 AM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Cc: The IESG; [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-
> opnfv-03: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi, thanks for the response. Please see inline:
> 
...
> >
> 
> It's great to see close collaboration between an open source project and
> a working group. But I don't see how it follows that it's a good idea to
> publish project status as an RFC.  Especially a project that is moving
> rapidly. But as I said, I'm not going to get in the way of publication.
> (I'm not going to make a detailed argument, because others have already
> done so, and I concede that this seems to fit the WG charter.)
> 
> >
...
[ACM] 
Thanks.

Using Benoit's comments, I've suggested wording that makes this
draft more about *contributions* to work in BMWG, and less about
"progress" of the VSPERF project. The authors wanted BMWG to 
take advantage of what we learned, and the best way to do that
was to clearly describe new test setups and new configuration
parameters in a less ephemeral form (wikis and OS docs disappear).
We also wanted to help BMWG folks appreciate the rest of the work
that was needed, and make some recommendations. 

I'm sure the VSPERF project folks will continue to collaborate
as long it is useful.
Al