Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-protection term-06 and meth-05

[Vrushabhendra Gurudevappa <[e-mail]>]

I-D Title(s): Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance
Filename(s): draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-05.txt
Reviewer Name: Vrushi Gurudevappa
Date: July 20, 2009


Please organize your comments in the following categories below.

Review Summary:

This draft provides all the scenarios and measurement techniques needed to successfully benchmark FastReroute Protection.

Overall:


   * Does/Do the draft(s) provide clear identification of the
     scope of work? E.g., is the class of device, system, or
     service being characterized clearly articulated.

 Yes.

   * If a terminology memo, are the measurement areas clearly
     defined or otherwise cited?  Is the working set of
     supporting terminology sufficient and correct?  To your
     knowledge, are the areas of the memo that may conflict
     with other bodies of work? Are there any measurements or
     terminology that are superfluous?  Are any missing?

n/a

   * If a methodology memo, does the methodology AND its
     corresponding terminology adequately define a benchmarking
     solution for its application area? Do the methodologies present
     sufficient detail for the experimental control of the benchmarks?

Yes they do.

   * If neither a terminology or methodology, does the offered
     memo offer complementary information important to the use
     or application of the related benchmarking solution?

n/a

   * Do you feel there are undocumented limitations or caveats to
     the benchmarking solution being proposed?  If so, please
     describe.

Not aware of any

   * Does the memo attempt to define acceptance criteria for
     any of the benchmark areas?

No

Technical Content:  (Accuracy, Completeness of coverage)


   Are definitions accurate? Is the terminology offered relevant?

Definitions are accurate and terminology is relevant


   To your knowledge, are there technical areas that are erroneous?
   Are there questionable technical areas that need to be re-examined
   or otherwise scrutinized.

Not to my knowledge.

   Does the solution adequately address IPv6?

n/a

   Do you feel the memo(s) being offered are technically mature enough
   for advancement to informational RFC?

Yes, I do


Clarity and Utility:


  If you had a need, would you utilize the benchmarking solutions
  advocated by this and its related memos?  If not, why?

Yes, I would and in fact I have done it in the past year.

Conformance to BMWG principles: (see BMWG charter) http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/html.charters/bmwg-charter.html


  Do you have confidence that the benchmarks, as explicitly
  defined, will yield consistent results if repeated on the
  same device (DUT/SUT), multiple times for a given test condition.
  If not, cite benchmark(s) and issue(s).

Absolutely yes.


  Do you have confidence that the benchmarks, if executed for a
  given test condition, utilizing the documented methodology
  on multiple test infrastructure (e.g., test equipment), would
  yield correct and consistent results on the same DUT/SUT?
  (Said differently, are the benchmark's methodology written
  with enough exacting detail, that benchmark implementation
  differences do not yield a difference in the measured quantities?)
  If not, cite benchmark(s) and issue(s).

Yes of course.

  Do you feel that the benchmarks form a basis of comparison between
  implementations of quantity being characterized? (I.e., are the
  benchmarks suitable for comparing solutions from different vendors.)

I do feel the benchmarks for a good basis for comparison between implementations.


Thanks,
-Vrushi