IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: (with COMMENT)

Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro> Thu, 08 June 2017 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64BFE128C84; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=rcs-rds.ro
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NG_NPlQpm3HS; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailproxy5.rcs-rds.ro (mailproxy5.rcs-rds.ro [212.54.124.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C778129ACD; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 23:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.172.5.198] (unknown [10.172.5.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailproxy5.rcs-rds.ro (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 247B1283170; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:27:17 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=rcs-rds.ro; s=MailProxy; t=1496903237; bh=Tn8S4rlae+ba+fVMOs+TeJA+93f0d5ympCMhwjwe6TE=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=O6OBKoA0MgFwlcBhFjepsGQRoIfDB7abiZ3pH1PtXBTyN0OqBvFYSe8Gu+rsrW4Sc 2V4wnoaHqsIFt7/smHO2MWUn4d8NILdiIvFeU1Fe3CsA2om/RmsobGVDI+3AzZ87KE ciwGXMmc4NP1WUNCH8CFqhs1ANz7oKz2qALTf3jA=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro>
In-Reply-To: <149684110633.2755.12077292205214337612.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 09:27:14 +0300
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, Alfred C Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8EAEB7D7-3D9E-47AB-B62F-59961B1D481E@rcs-rds.ro>
References: <149684110633.2755.12077292205214337612.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/4K5TvRFaSXL0GDS9DqfvDTR5CHM>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 06:27:20 -0000

Hello Alvaro,

Thank you for your review.
I think that your suggestion is the best way to go and we will review the draft accordingly.

Best regards,
Marius
> On Jun 7, 2017, at 4:11 PM, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: No Objection
> 
> 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-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Section 4. (Test Setup):
> 
>   In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13
>   are valid for this document assuming that an IPv6 version of the
>   routing packets shown in appendix C.2.6.2 is used.
> 
> However, rfc2544 says in several places that the packets in the appendix are
> just examples.  The frame in C.2.6.2 is a RIP update -- but Section 11.3
> references the rate at which "frames SHOULD be sent" (also in the appendix)
> which include OSPF and IGRP, so I'm assuming that any routing protocol used
> should work (if the recommendations are followed in terms of frequency, etc.). 
> I note that rfc5180 doesn't really say anything about routing setup for IPv6
> either. :-(
> 
> I know this is not the document to define a complete set of (or even update)
> recommendations for routing setup, so my suggestion is to simply take off the
> reference to the appendix:
> 
>   In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13
>   are valid for this document assuming that IPv6 capable routing
>   protocols are used.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email