Re: [bmwg] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03: (with COMMENT)

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Thu, 17 December 2020 19:21 UTC

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame@ietf.org>, "bmwg-chairs@ietf.org" <bmwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
Thread-Topic: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHW1GVr/0+nB6u+I0WGdQ2rcY+2f6n7oLQQ
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 19:21:36 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF0147670483@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <160820348516.13654.3231057156144349452@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <160820348516.13654.3231057156144349452@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/P-HXRKjZZhjeLymPZFmi5GUYRHw>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi Ben, 
Thanks for your careful read, as always.
I have all the actions below in the working text now.
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 6:11 AM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame@ietf.org; bmwg-chairs@ietf.org;
> bmwg@ietf.org; Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>; sbanks@encrypted.net
> Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
...
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for staging changes to resolve the tsvart and secdir
> reviewers' comments.
> 
> I assume that it goes without saying that the computed StdDev are sample
> standard deviations, not population standard deviations.
> 
> Section 6
> 
> What kind of DUT is only going to have 4 microseconds of buffer?
[acm] 
I read the example value (0.00004) as 40 microseconds. 
We are seeing values in this range for one of the many container networking options, but we really hope developers can improve the situation (it seems resistant to configuration changes).
The results are not published yet...

> 
> Section 10.1
[acm] 
must be section 1, 
> 
> It is surprising to see a normative reference being made to the Obsolete
> RFC 1944.
[acm] 
ok, that one can be informative.

> 
> Likewise, some of the references are only tenuously referenced and would
> seem better characterized as informative (e.g., RFC 6201, RFC 6985).
[acm] 
Yes, that's fine, the citations are purely introductory info.
> 
> Section 10.2
> 
> On the other hand, if the methods of RFC 8239 SHOULD be used in some
> cases, that suggests that it should more properly be characterized as a
> normative reference.
[acm] 
I'm ok with your reading of normative

> 
> Similarly, the TST009 binary search is one of the two options from which
> a selection MUST be made, which seems to make it normative as well.
[acm] 
Ok, and this was a good prompt to update the TST009 reference to this year's model (published in December).

> 
>

[bmwg] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-iet… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
Re: [bmwg] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)