Re: [bmwg] Reporting format -- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-00.txt
Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Mon, 17 October 2022 03:11 UTC
Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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 A45F5C14F743 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 20:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KGxpE9PDKdCF for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 20:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69D61C14F73D for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 20:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.11.2] (M106153182152.v4.enabler.ne.jp [106.153.182.152]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 29H3AwME045418 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 05:11:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host M106153182152.v4.enabler.ne.jp [106.153.182.152] claimed to be [192.168.11.2]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------72ZQ0hY2QLsJuOASfeHAhsmm"
Message-ID: <e184fb20-a3ee-e8ed-e238-98b861ffe111@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 12:10:57 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.3
Content-Language: en-US
To: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
References: <166404257987.62474.16153916416210946356@ietfa.amsl.com> <a18a8b31-fb8d-4ee6-8092-1a03978d86e5@hit.bme.hu> <36a9fcf2-3509-bb7e-60ec-9f7a0e333633@hit.bme.hu> <CH0PR02MB7980D630AE1668DA99A77D62D3259@CH0PR02MB7980.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Gabor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
In-Reply-To: <CH0PR02MB7980D630AE1668DA99A77D62D3259@CH0PR02MB7980.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.7 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=106.153.182.152; helo=[192.168.11.2]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.11;
X-DCC-x.dcc-servers-Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.86 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/HM6Y6gsSSYk-N-WbsGhtMIANFNY>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Reporting format -- Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-00.txt
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 17 Oct 2022 03:11:23 -0000
Dear Al,
Thank you very much for your review!
I have changed the title of Figure 3 as you recommended:
Figure 3: Example table: Non-validated maximum connection
establishment rate of iptables against the number of sessions
I will wait for a few days just in case someone else may have some other
recommendations and then I upload the new version before the cut-off date.
And of course, I would like to present the novelties of our draft at
IETF 115.
Best regards,
Gábor
On 10/14/2022 2:48 AM, MORTON JR., AL wrote:
>
> Hi Gábor,
>
> Your text proposal for reporting reads clearly to me, thanks for
> identifying the omission and preparing the new text.
>
> The example table seems concise-enough to me to include in the body of
> the doc, although the table tile could be re-worded to start with the
> words “Example table”, rather than delaying that fact to the end...
>
> regards,
>
> Al
>
> (as a participant)
>
>
- [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-s… internet-drafts
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarki… Gabor LENCSE
- [bmwg] Reporting format -- Re: I-D Action: draft-… Gabor LENCSE
- Re: [bmwg] Reporting format -- Re: I-D Action: dr… MORTON JR., AL
- Re: [bmwg] Reporting format -- Re: I-D Action: dr… Gabor LENCSE