Comments on bmwg-secperf-04

[Kevin Dubray <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

In section 3.4, Bit Forwarding Rate, you write:  "...this
measurement counts bits per second rather than frames per
second.  Per-frame metrics are not meaningful in the context
of a flow of application data between endpoints."

Two comments.  First, if you leave the above declaration (i.e.,
per frame metrics are not meaningful), you may wish to offer a
explanation as to your rationale. This would help the reader
build an understanding as to your conclusion.

Second, if per-frame performance is meaningless in the firewall 
context, (I'm not sure I _totally_ agree), why are you carrying the 
frame overhead in the metric versus some sort of Effective Bit
Forwarding Rate (bit fwd rate of data payload component only?)


Section 3.7.  Connection.  I would move this wonderfully defined
abstration ahead of the connection-related metrics (e.g. concurrent
connections.)  I had lots of questions about section 3.6, concurrent
connections, until I read your definition of connection... ;-)


Section 1. Introduction.  "The primary metrics used in this document
are bit forwarding rate and connections."  A nit.  As you defined
in section 3.6, a connection is a abstraction, not a metric. Perhaps,
"... a bit forwarding rate metric and connection-related metrics."

Otherwise, this draft has come along nicely since LA!

-Kevin