Considerations for Benchmarking Virtual Network Functions and Their Infrastructure
RFC 8172

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Joel Jaeggli) Yes

(Kathleen Moriarty) Yes

Comment (2017-03-16 for -04)
No email
send info
Thanks for a well-written draft!

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-15 for -04)
No email
send info
A clear and well-written doc - thanks!

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-15 for -04)
No email
send info
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) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

Comment (2017-03-14 for -04)
No email
send info
Thanks for the well written doc!

Alvaro Retana No Objection