Re: [bmwg] AD Evaluation for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Marius,

Since all ADs read *many* documents, it is universally
preferred to respond quickly as you've done, and follow-up
with a revised version in this case (and when requested
in the steps that follow). 

When the revised version is available, the next step will 
likely be an IETF-wide Last Call. This is when the various 
Directorates that help the Area Directors will review 
the draft, and there will be some more comments as a result.

After Last Call, the draft will be scheduled for an IESG
telechat, and the other Area Directors will likely provide 
even more comments. Prompt replies and resolving text will
again keep your draft moving.

If you have any questions as we proceed, don't hesitate to
get in touch.

regards,
Al
bmwg co-chair and doc shepherd



> -----Original Message-----
> From: bmwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Marius Georgescu
> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:35 AM
> To: Warren Kumari
> Cc: [e-mail]; draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [bmwg] AD Evaluation for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-
> benchmarking
> 
> Hello Warren,
> 
> Thank you very much for your kind words and for the detailed review.
> We will revise the draft considering the Shepherd writeup and your
> comments.
> Is there a deadline we should be aware of?
> 
> Best regards,
> Marius
> 
> > On Apr 14, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > First off, thanks for a really well written document -- I've done some
> > benchmarking of routers and switches and similar, but never and
> > translation devices. This document explains how I would benchmark this
> > nicely.
> >
> > I had a few minor nits which I think would be nice if you could
> > address before I start IETF LC - this should help the document sail
> > though the process.
> > While addressing these, there are also 2 editorial notes in the
> > Shepherd writeup, both (IMO) easy to address.
> >
> >
> > W
> >
> > Section 1:
> > "ability to gracefully accommodate greater numbers of flows
> >   than the maximum number of flows which the DUT can operate
> normally."
> >
> > [O] DUT
> > [P] [spell out DUT]
> > [R] first use of the acronym
> >
> >
> > Section 1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies
> > "4. Encapsulation: The production network is assumed to have all three
> > domains, Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core ..."
> >
> > [O] three domains, Domains A and B
> > [P] three domains; Domains A and B
> > [R] grammar
> >
> >
> > Section 5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes
> >
> > "The two documents can be referred for the dual-stack transition
> technologies."
> >
> > [O] referred
> > [P] referenced
> > [R] not sure what is meant; referenced is just a guess here. Or
> > "referred to"? Nither sounds great.
> >
> >
> >
> > "The calculation method for the Ethernet, as well as a calculation
> > example are detailed in Appendix A. "
> >
> > [O] calculation example are
> > [P] calculation example, are
> > [R] grammar
> >
> >
> > Section 6. Modifiers
> >
> >   The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first
> >   introduced in [RFC2544](Section 11) and represents an important
> >   aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates to some
> >   extent the conditions of a production environment. Section 6 of
> >
> > [O]  as it emulates to some extent the
> > [P] as it emulates, to some extent, the
> > [R] grammar
> >
> >
> > Section 8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
> > Technologies
> >
> >   This section describes additional tests dedicated to the stateful
> >   IPv6 transition technologies. For the tests described in this
> >   section the DUT devices SHOULD follow the test setup and test
> >
> > [O] section the DUT device
> > [P] section, the DUT device
> > [R] grammar
> >
> >
> > - If the DNS64 server implements caching and there is a cache hit
> >        then step 1 is followed by step 6 (and steps 2 through 5 are
> >        omitted).
> > - If the domain name has an AAAA record then it is returned in
> >
> > [O] If the domain name has an AAAA record then it is returned
> > [P] If the domain name has an AAAA record, then it is returned
> >
> >
> >
> > (When all the domain names are cached then the results do not depend
> > on what percentage of the ...
> >
> > [O] are cached then the
> > [P] are cached, the
> > [R] readability
> >
> >
> >
> > (When all the domain names
> >   are cached then the results do not depend on what percentage of the
> >   domain names have AAAA records, thus these combinations are not
> >   worth testing one by one.)
> > [O] are cached then the
> > [P] are cached, the
> > [R] readability
> >
> >
> > queries at the required frequency using up not more than the half of
> > the timeout time.
> >
> >   Remark: a sample open-source test program, dns64perf++ is available
> >
> > [O] dns64perf++ is
> > [P] dns64perf++, is
> > [R] grammar
> >
> >
> >
> >  For encapsulation transition technologies a m:n setup can be
> >
> > [O]  For encapsulation transition technologies
> > [P]  For encapsulation transition technologies,
> > [R] grammar
> >
> >   created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same client
> >   device and n the number of client devices connected to the same
> >   server device.
> >   For the translation based transition technologies the client devices
> >
> > [O] For the translation based transition technologies the client
> > [P] For the translation based transition technologies, the client
> > [R] grammar
> >
> >
> >
> > In other words, if flow I is started at time x, flow i+1
> >
> > [O] flow I is started at time x, flow i+1
> > [R] I and i should be consistent; either use upper or lower case. Same
> > for other variables.
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 11. NAT44 and NAT66
> >
> >   Although these technologies are not the primarily scope of this
> >
> > [O] the primarily scope
> > [P] the primary scope
> > [R] word choice
> >
> >
> > Section 12. Summarizing function and variation
> >
> > For a fine grain analysis of the frequency distribution of the data,
> >
> > [O] fine grain analysis
> > [P] fine grained analysis
> > [R] word choice
> >
> >
> > --
> > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> > idea in the first place.
> > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> > of pants.
> >   ---maf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bmwg&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=AUvQF5fSs3nruuM6VEndHNo4IEW
> FISyixgNCDlimEFk&s=wgtEceg7IsJIzEfu1N0VBNJcuYUx4X7fqNHAJmsV2AE&e=