Re: [bmwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8239 (5652)

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Mon, 01 July 2019 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 56EEC120106 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 13:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 IrsPA8ntqA3x for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 13:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x841.google.com (mail-qt1-x841.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::841]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EFC71200E7 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 13:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x841.google.com with SMTP id x47so16169766qtk.11 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 13:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Njx0jqI4UBpfvou4eHRMvI7Ng0wYBdETvjmDyA4iZ5k=; b=qcL0Dp922p7PquQ+scWDiELfTIsUYbN8kSBMbRmNgz+fETynodayx+VOZs7FazhBWp ieL47Qc6iDLpp+iwbhENsZMk7yCbbsiEFePA0cW5kvtPwsF6jSz4Wxy0DrIiL7y9T7fT mcxflPQbAbdqWEeaOvhTKvLxsW4v/dnkQXsy1XBtZUIo8kcEGMJmVAlD8mToUvADxmJ7 +q3gIUMRu2ju3jQ2nyhywkO1nVyVF56Ca7Zkip1o6B8OzZg+UJ2ot287Ls1oHYyqTiCO zMStTA9hIHBotthdlly5X3Gs2TUec8yuMENzUPYLCc5bYAH1XUmJpPFz5c3l9N5cGiqI gMLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Njx0jqI4UBpfvou4eHRMvI7Ng0wYBdETvjmDyA4iZ5k=; b=MZkEEJ0grGqrKreL7NvEBGCfMUb2WcC9FvlzAf/lwRMikSa0WhTRiqwVbfr1DmM6Kd h8eYb1svOEYb/yVysrIH4DZRfFaogWnjYIInGmftnUJM4fN6FLkkwD0ZUMVUfQ1rgxts nO+ECGPjWjWXgWtGyZt/TfsnZYfJqPpMFXaKwyu8ePoTlDpIdIDzZbKlFms96y+kHpCz fOjZOfmELNO/aZRpFrAaqs5X4X3swv4lvriEJfFPpRkg1nSrNJaiJQ0oBB39b2M/D+9N Dtj+Jep2xjNGyk4ssOpdEadhEsKEOeOE5exjocQyZc9Ivz55VJy2HpSvPvWm1ACsdJ90 RvQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXrxqNwZPxy7II8OJqkKcOSw//s6QdWvgIvncrFnCFkIvO2RKDG gztdKwKdhARtNGTx+d8YYst5X9symLGFmTzyRpyYEQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwnxVB0MCkrzjy490R7Df1BANdiXUCvj1PHSFVsl7P5WesGKjvTvWwKsXi6fVnlETbGMMjZAKFHRNj+0u2Oafc=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:baa8:: with SMTP id x40mr23821020qvf.168.1562014659761; Mon, 01 Jul 2019 13:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190312142436.DFB42B82A82@rfc-editor.org> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF6C003A8D@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <CALccSYcocYn0LeLWPQQb_vQc29Vi565Q0Ypxnh+pcPD2RXKC0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALccSYcocYn0LeLWPQQb_vQc29Vi565Q0Ypxnh+pcPD2RXKC0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 16:57:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iJxJtnkOTm7dUDBdp_sbL2XbdMKVayu2K_VH6DOrZBCMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jacob H. Rapp" <jhrapp@gmail.com>
Cc: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "lucien.avramov@gmail.com" <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>, "ibagdona@gmail.com" <ibagdona@gmail.com>, "sbanks@encrypted.net" <sbanks@encrypted.net>, "nmalykh@ieee.org" <nmalykh@ieee.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/8LTkSoq313gcmWJgVmzfYfHnT-c>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8239 (5652)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:57:45 -0000

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 3:31 PM Jacob H. Rapp <jhrapp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Al. Lucien and I are reviewing and will provide feedback soon.
>

Hi there,

Any progress? This errata is still open, and I'm trying to clean up
the Ops side of errata...

W


> thanks,
>
> --
> Jacob
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:45 AM MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com> wrote:
>>
>> Authors,
>>
>> In a quick review, the proposed change appears to
>> concentrate the oversubscription traffic at the
>> N-1 egress port.
>>
>> Another fix could be (changing the first designation of the egress port,
>> and highlighting that there are both ingress and egress port N here):
>>
>> OLD
>>        o  Last iteration: Ingress port N-2 sending line rate to egress
>>           port N-1, while port N is sending a known low amount of ...
>> Suggest
>>        o  Last iteration: Ingress port N-2 sending line rate to egress
>>           port N, while ingress port N is sending a known low amount of ...
>>
>> But there is some adaptation needed from previous steps because
>> N is the *last* port, so the egress port N should be tested in the
>> last iteration, AFAICT.
>>
>> Let us know what you think.
>> Al
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:25 AM
>> > To: lucien.avramov@gmail.com; jhrapp@gmail.com; ibagdona@gmail.com;
>> > warren@kumari.net; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>om>;
>> > sbanks@encrypted.net
>> > Cc: nmalykh@ieee.org; bmwg@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
>> > Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8239 (5652)
>> >
>> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8239,
>> > "Data Center Benchmarking Methodology".
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > You may review the report below and at:
>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-
>> > 2Deditor.org_errata_eid5652&d=DwIBaQ&c=LFYZ-
>> > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=LxASF7NaQP_D9pzHXIbGJ6hUXBu5E
>> > beKiJwvXf1ur84&s=JISNNUf8r8-ZwJkApM9cfoP8T-V2OoAYCvcNSiyymmA&e=
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > Type: Technical
>> > Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <nmalykh@ieee.org>
>> >
>> > Section: 3.2
>> >
>> > Original Text
>> > -------------
>> >       o  Last iteration: Ingress port N-2 sending line rate to egress
>> >          port N-1, while port N is sending a known low amount of
>> >          oversubscription traffic (1% recommended) with the same packet
>> >          size to egress port N.  Measure the buffer size value by
>> >          multiplying the number of extra frames sent by the frame size.
>> >
>> >
>> > Corrected Text
>> > --------------
>> >       o  Last iteration: Ingress port N-2 sending line rate to egress
>> >          port N-1, while port N is sending a known low amount of
>> >          oversubscription traffic (1% recommended) with the same packet
>> >          size to egress port N-1.  Measure the buffer size value by
>> >          multiplying the number of extra frames sent by the frame size.
>> >
>> >
>> > Notes
>> > -----
>> > Incorrect number of the output port for oversubscription traffic.
>> >
>> > Instructions:
>> > -------------
>> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>> > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > RFC8239 (draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-18)
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > Title               : Data Center Benchmarking Methodology
>> > Publication Date    : August 2017
>> > Author(s)           : L. Avramov, J. Rapp
>> > Category            : INFORMATIONAL
>> > Source              : Benchmarking Methodology
>> > Area                : Operations and Management
>> > Stream              : IETF
>> > Verifying Party     : IESG



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf