Subject: [bmwg] Terry Manderson's Abstain on draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 22:05:48 -0700

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03: Abstain

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not comfortable using the RFC series to describe the _progress_ of the Open
Platform for NFV. This is orthogonal to the immutable nature of the RFC series
as in a very short period the progress on the Open Platform for NFV will be
different, and requiring a BIS or other revisions.  Thus to "inform the
industry of work-in-progress" (to quote the draft) is not something that I see
as a part of the RFC series.

I shall not stand in the way of publication and have balloted ABSTAIN. However,
my advice is to seek other avenues for publication more in line with the
white-paper that is draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv.

==-=-=-=-=- added comment
I should also add that I have seen the response in relation to Alvaro's
ABSTAIN, and that does not sway me. If you are interested in documenting the
the test specifications that ARE implemented and any associated metrics, then
that I think is a different document, especially when this document has such
words as "Future/planned test specs include"...