Re: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance draft 02]

[[e-mail]]

It doesn’t hurt either. 😊

 

Should we hold off until you complete your review before we submit a new draft? I am hoping others weigh in on this as well.

 

Brian

 

From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: June 3, 2020 1:04 PM
To: Brian Monkman <[e-mail]>; 'Simon Edwards' <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance draft 02]

 

Hi Brian,  no other pauses or speed-bumps yet, but I need to complete my 

review of the most recent version.

 

sorry, I know that doesn’t help!

Al

 

From: Brian Monkman [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:21 PM
To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; 'Simon Edwards' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance draft 02]

 

Hi Al,

 

Are there any other items that caused you pause that could be addressed the same way?

 

Brian

 

Get Outlook for iOS <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aka.ms_o0ukef&d=DwMF-g&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-6zYMI&m=gwfQJfXOl1ZubaA9a-aKfQ8n5AY2sKsb3Ml9NAklRwQ&s=ai2z_d2vwJeZx_EibZkLkoE_ZWS26ZSoAJq9RZNf6bM&e=> 

  _____  

From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:12:27 PM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; 'Simon Edwards' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance draft 02] 

 

Thanks for your question, Simon, and the history, Brian.

 

I confess that this question (why 50%?) has occurred to me in other contexts, and it may help to add a sentence to two of rationale. So if the technical folks can help with suggestions, that would be great!

 

regards,

Al

 

From: bmwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:56 AM
To: 'Simon Edwards' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance draft 02]

 

Simon,

 

This requirement was agreed to and adopted by the working group within NetSecOPEN. It first appeared in the IETF individual draft on October 14, 2018. (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-05 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dbalarajah-2Dbmwg-2Dngfw-2Dperformance-2D05&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=mylQC4CnyBjr1JS-Qbiw5d392Llnmp_6LxMRXJO8NVI&s=8ElQf-XUyhkke33v7BvLLf5mEBDCEU2mlwlFDpxHJD8&e=> ). It was clarified and expanded on March 5, 2019 in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-00 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbmwg-2Dngfw-2Dperformance-2D00&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=mylQC4CnyBjr1JS-Qbiw5d392Llnmp_6LxMRXJO8NVI&s=xbiPb0v60VZvEM2cumbN3J41IrOw2hMUK7HHaR-HN8o&e=> . It’s form has largely been unchanged since then.

 

I will leave it to the technical folks to expand on this more. However, I am saying all of this because it has been in the position to be reviewed and commented on by the BMWG community for awhile. Our assumption is that given no one appears to have an issue with it that we hit the mark.

 

Brian

 

From: bmwg <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Simon Edwards
Sent: June 3, 2020 5:10 AM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: [bmwg] Query about 50% values in [Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance draft 02]

 

Hi all,

 

In a number of sections, but specifically '7.8.3.2.  Test Equipment Configuration Parameters', there are requirements to measure with 50% of the maximum connections/ sec measured in the HTTP/S throughput tests

 

E.g. "Target objective for scenarios 1 and 2: 50% of the maximum connections per second measured in test scenario..."

 

I'm sure this 50% value is the product of much thought and discussion, rather than an arbitrary choice. Is anyone able to explain the reason for the specific '50%' value (as opposed to 25%, 75% or whatever) or could you please point to documentation around that decision made by the group?

 

I'm asking just to understand. I don't disagree with the decision : )

 

Very best wishes,

Simon