Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual Network Functions and Their Infrastructure
RFC 8172
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) Yes
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) Yes
Thanks for a well-written draft!
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
A clear and well-written doc - thanks!
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
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? -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..." Can you offer a definition or citation for "bare metal"? "Also, benchmarking combinations of physical and virtual devices and functions in a System Under Test.": Sentence fragment. - 4.2, first paragraph, last sentence: Can you offer a citation for the 4x3 matrix? :
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
Thanks for the well written doc!
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection