Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-03.txt

Bill Cerveny <bill@wjcerveny.com> Thu, 02 August 2012 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <bill@wjcerveny.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 6608211E8113; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 TZMQc4YyrsUj; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7055211E80FF; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34AAA20B66; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:42:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web6.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.216]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:42:38 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:from:to:cc:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:subject:reply-to:date :in-reply-to:references; s=smtpout; bh=qp1/zFca85gj5S7nU3pbHcp9w HA=; b=rlLYO5f4Tcl/2jb1gwpdhoTKncGAU4Kjq21YCcYr5brVHpz8vtfRyXsUM kEIuutIiMen4MGU+lKDkpdMfmU9FJZSgb01ec3dCiioCm/joCjbCP6X0kpRbGo3r f1VY38O5BoZD5ZEU2t9UPzTB033pXBJV/0kFWZKbVkXAkGmXEY=
Received: by web6.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix, from userid 99) id 031886844B3; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:42:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1343940157.1116.140661109974901.339907EA@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: TwZJyeCZ+nWl/ghy9XHCxgv/lSlobZAaRIjZfuHapsh5 1343940157
From: Bill Cerveny <bill@wjcerveny.com>
To: internet-drafts@ietf.org, i-d-announce@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:42:37 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20120731152448.19816.81394.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20120731152448.19816.81394.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-03.txt
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bill@wjcerveny.com
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: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:42:40 -0000

My comments on -03:

1) Be careful about recommending RFC 2544 regarding IPv4 blocks for
addressing, as these blocks were listed incorrectly in RFC2544, and
corrected in an errata ... I seem to recall an IANA response regarding
this with a different draft emphasizing this point.

2) Regarding appendix A, I would discourage using specific
vendor/application names in the example mix, as this will minimally tend
to prematurely age the document, in my opinion (In 5 years, or even 2
years, how many of these vendor/applications will still exist?). I also
don't know if there are any concerns or issues with arbitrarily listing
trademarked names in a document.

3) In appendix B, it appears you are saying in the intro that "Ethernet,
IPv4, IPv6, TCP and UDP fields" to be malformed are listed; yet as far
as I can tell, you did not list IPv6 fields.

4) Grammatical: section 4.1.4.3: "Note than calculation ..." -> "Note
that calculation..."

5) Grammatical: section 4.1.3: "minimum rate will attempted" -> "minimum
rate attempted" and "This test MAY be repeated, each ..." perhaps change
to "This test MAY be repeated, with each ..."

6) "Benchmarking Working Group" -> "Benchmarking Methodologies Working
Group" in multiple places.

7) Grammatical (optional): Abstract: "The scenarios in the following
document" -> "The scenarios in this document" 

Bill Cerveny

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012, at 11:24 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group
>  of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title           : Benchmarking Methodology for Content-Aware Network Devices
> 	Author(s)       : Mike Hamilton
>                           Sarah Banks
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-03.txt
> 	Pages           : 19
> 	Date            : 2012-07-31
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document defines a set of test scenarios and metrics that can be
>    used to benchmark content-aware network devices.  The scenarios in
>    the following document are intended to more accurately predict the
>    performance of these devices when subjected to dynamic traffic
>    patterns.  This document will operate within the constraints of the
>    Benchmarking Working Group charter, namely black box characterization
>    in a laboratory environment.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-03
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-03
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg