RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12.txt

Debby,

If you could rewrite the section so that it is clear what the two test
conditions are, that would be great.  I was not sure how to do that, so my
recommendation was based on section 4.4 writing style.

Can you take another look at sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.3 before you
rewrite the Group Join Delay?  These three sections are different test
conditions.  Throughput is still determined using the same goalposts.
Figure 3, 4, and 5 are the same as Figure 1 with the word 'Tunnel' in
different places.

Any objection to naming the two test conditions?  A descriptive name would
be clearer that a Boolean state.  

Jerry.

> >One suggestion would be to divide this into two different 
> tests.  Put 
> >state 0 and method A under '6.1.1 Initial Group Join Delay'. 
>  Then put 
> >state 1 and method B under '6.1.2 Primed Group Join Delay'.
> 
> I don't recommend that this section be broken into two tests. 
>  Regardless of
> the two test conditions, delay is still determined using the 
> same goalposts,
> much like obtaining Latency or Throughput metrics while modifiers are
> present.  By stating the method used in the configuration 
> section of the
> report, one can easily compare if the delay metric is 
> affected under the two
> test conditions.  

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg