Subject: [Nfvrg] Improvement suggestions regarding draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:27:09 +0200

Hi,

I have read the "Gap Analysis on Network Virtualization Activities" draft,
and I have some comments and improvement suggestions.

- Throughout the sections, you identify different gaps, which are summarized
in Section 5. My recommendation is to add a number to each gap, not only in
Section 5, but also in the places where they appear for the first time.

- The report titled "Software Defined Networking (SDN) and Network Function
Virtualisation (NFV) for Wi-Fi networks", (March 2016), by the Wireless
Broadband Alliance, "examines the usage of SDN and NFV in the deployment of
Wi-Fi network providing use cases, an analysis of the state of the art,
definition of requirements, architectures alternatives, challenges and gaps
for the Wi-Fi network components." It mentions some of the IETF/IRTF WGs you
are also talking about: NFV, SFC, NVO3, BESS, TEAS and VNFPool. Would it
make sense to have a look to it, as it can also be part of the "context" of
your draft?

Some minor typos and improvement suggestions:

- "the different efforts that have taken and are currently taking" could say
"have been taken"?

- Terminology (Section 2): After each term, you use either "-" or ":". You
could perhaps use the same character for all of them.

- "Network Function Virtualisation Infrastructure (NFVI)." Should say
"Virtualization".

- "many network equipment types into industry standard high volume servers,
switches, and storage." Could say "storage devices"?

- This sentence sounds a bit weird to me: "It enables implementing network
functions in software that can run on a range of industry standard server
hardware and can be moved to, or loaded in, various locations in the network
as required, without the need to install new equipment." What about "It
enables to implement in software network functions, which can run on a wide
range of standard servers. According to network requirements, these
functions can be moved to, or be loaded in different locations, without the
need to install new equipment."?

- "ETSI NFV is by far the most accepted NFV reference framework". Perhaps
the "by far" could be avoided to sound more objective.

- "Originally this protocol was developed specifically for IEEE 802.1" could
say "This protocol was originally developed specifically for."

- "The SDNRG has documented a reference layer model in". You could say "The
SDNRG (see Section 4.1) has documented a reference layer model in"

- "As such, they SDNRG will not define" should say "the SDNRG".

- This sentence sounds a bit weird to me: "Routing elements consist of an
agent that communicates with the client or clients driven by the
applications and accesses the different subsystems in the element"

- There is something wrong in this sentence: "As part of the tasks of the
BMWG, it is explicitly tasked to develop benchmarks and methodologies for
VNF and related infrastructure benchmarking, Benchmarking Methodologies have
reliably characterized many physical devices."

- "components will be also addressed," could say "will also be addressed".

- "manage multiple physical networks elements as single virtualized
network." Could say "as a single virtualized network".

- There is something missing here: "The I2NSF WG at defining interfaces to
the flow based network security functions (NSFs) hosted by service providers
at different premises."

- "running over transport layer protocols (e.g. TCP, UPD) over IP." Should
say UDP instead of UPD.

Best regards,

Jose