Re: [bmwg] FW: WGLC on New version of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance

["MORTON JR., AL" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks to the authors/editor for continuing to chase-down comments and resolving them.
I know very well how much work this is.

I'm trying to finish-up my review tonight (as a participant):

   o  Inspected Throughput
      The number of bits per second of allowed traffic a network
      security device is able to transmit to the correct destination
      interface(s) in response to a specified offered load.  The
      throughput benchmarking tests defined in Section 7 SHOULD measure
      the average OSI model Layer 2 throughput value.  This document
      recommends presenting the throughput value in Gbit/s rounded to
      two places of precision with a more specific Kbit/s in
      parenthesis.

Let me suggest a couple of tweaks on this definition:

It took me several minutes to remember that "inspected" invokes the role of security device, for some reason.

The OSI model doesn't have a good reputation here at IETF, and the Internet was not built based on ISO's model.

So I'll try a little editing:

   o  Inspected Throughput
      The number of bits per second of examined and allowed traffic a network
      security device is able to transmit to the correct destination
      interface(s) in response to a specified offered load.  The
      throughput benchmarking tests defined in Section 7 SHOULD measure
      the average Layer 2 throughput value when the DUT is "inspecting" traffic.  This document
      recommends presenting the inspected throughput value in Gbit/s rounded to
      two places of precision with a more specific Kbit/s in
      parenthesis.

I also checked the nits, which revealed use of 2 incorrect addresses as examples.
BMWG has it's own IPv4 and v6 address space assigned. Please use it where appropriate.
I'm not sure where the offending addresses are, sorry!


Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



  == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses

     in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.



  == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses

     in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

The tables below are from RFC 6890:

                    +----------------------+---------------+

                    | Attribute            | Value         |

                    +----------------------+---------------+

                    | Address Block        | 198.18.0.0/15 |

                    | Name                 | Benchmarking  |

                    | RFC                  | [RFC2544<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2544>]     |

                    | Allocation Date      | March 1999    |

                    | Termination Date     | N/A           |

                    | Source               | True          |

                    | Destination          | True          |

                    | Forwardable          | True          |

                    | Global               | False         |

                    | Reserved-by-Protocol | False         |

                    +----------------------+---------------+



          Table 12: Network Interconnect Device Benchmark Testing

and




                    +----------------------+----------------+

                    | Attribute            | Value          |

                    +----------------------+----------------+

                    | Address Block        | 2001:2::/48    |

                    | Name                 | Benchmarking   |

                    | RFC                  | [RFC5180<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5180>]      |

                    | Allocation Date      | April 2008     |

                    | Termination Date     | N/A            |

                    | Source               | True           |

                    | Destination          | True           |

                    | Forwardable          | True           |

                    | Global               | False          |

                    | Reserved-by-Protocol | False          |

                    +----------------------+----------------+



                          Table 24: Benchmarking


Also:


  Miscellaneous warnings:

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if

     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.



     (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the

     ID-Checklist requires).


The section seems to exist, but may need slight re-wording,
to match RFC 8174, or this version of the nits-checker is out of date
(it doesn't mention rfc 8174?):


2<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-08#section-2>.  Requirements



   The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",

   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and

   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/bcp14>

   14<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/bcp14> [RFC2119<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119>], [RFC8174<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8174>] when, and only when, they appear in all

   capitals, as shown here.

thanks,
Al


From: bmwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of MORTON JR., AL
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 1:34 PM
To: [e-mail]; 'Gabor LENCSE' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 'Bala Balarajah' <[e-mail]>; 'Bala Balarajah' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] FW: WGLC on New version of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance

***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.
of course Brian and Gábor, I can use the extra time myself.


BMWG,
We will extend the deadline for WGLC to May 21, as requested.
Al
bmwg co-chair

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 1:02 PM
To: 'Gabor LENCSE' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: 'Bala Balarajah' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'Bala Balarajah' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 'MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'Sarah Banks' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [bmwg] FW: WGLC on New version of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance

Thanks Gabor.

Al, could you extend the deadline for WGLC to May 21st from May 17th?

Brian

From: Gabor LENCSE <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 12:58 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Bala Balarajah' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'Bala Balarajah' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 'MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'Sarah Banks' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] FW: WGLC on New version of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance


Hi Brian,

Perhaps I can do another chunk later this week, and I plan to complete it next week.

Best regards,

Gábor
On 5/10/2021 6:45 PM, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Gabor,

Thank you very much for your comments. On initial review they all look reasonable to us. How long do you think it will take you to complete your review of the rest of the document?

Brian