[bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-04: (with COMMENT)
"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 28 May 2013 14:00 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 B816021F9760; Tue, 28 May 2013 07:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U1ZpqWWgHKFC; Tue, 28 May 2013 07:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E9D21F975E; Tue, 28 May 2013 07:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.50
Message-ID: <20130528140014.20675.12462.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 07:00:14 -0700
Cc: bmwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 28 May 2013 14:00:14 -0000
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-04: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- No objection to the publication of this document. However, I have some remarks/questions. Please engage in the discussion. - z=MTU is seen as valuable, so MTU MUST be specified if used. Where? by whom? The tester? Following Section 4 " The tester MUST complete the following table" example", you might need something such as: If the z (MTU) is used, the tester MUST specifiy the MTU value in the report - While this approach allows some flexibility, there are also constraints. o Non-RFC2544 packet sizes would need to be approximated by those available in the table. o The Genome for very long sequences can become undecipherable by humans. o z=MTU is seen as valuable, so MTU MUST be specified if used. o "jumbo" sizes are included. "jumbo" sizes are included: is this a constraint or an advantage? I thought it was an advantage. - OLD: The chosen configuration would be expressed the following general form: NEW: The chosen configuration would be expressed in the following general form: - +-----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+ | Source | Destination | Corresponding | | Address/Port/Blade | Address/Port/Blade | IMIX | +-----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+ | x.x.x.x Blade2 | y.y.y.y Blade3 | IMIX - aaafg | +-----------------------+-------------------------+-----------------+ I don't see the port in the examples. Maybe you meant Address/{Port|Blade} ? Or maybe you meant Address/{Port AND/OR Blade} ? - Section 4. The custom IMIX can use the MTU size, by setting it up in the Genome. However, the MTU semantic is not conveyed. Is this intentional? I was thinking that Z would be the MTU, with the constraint that the tester MUST specify the MTU value in the report? - Section 4. Isn't it an issue that only 26 discrete values are possible? Don't we have test for which the packet size increases by 1 monotonically? - Section 5 I guess that the sentence "When a sequence can be decomposed into a series of short repeating sequences, then a run-length encoding approach MAY be used as shown below:" can also apply to custom IMIX. The example doesn't show it. If this is the case, you should mention it. Editorial "Genome" versus "genome" throughout document
- [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benoit Claise
- Re: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… MORTON JR., ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Benoit Claise