Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane drafts

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for carefully reading all of this, much appreciated.
You said:
>3.6.5 does need amending to bring in line with 3.6.6 but it is an additional
>'if' that is needed not a 'when', in just the place where 3.6.6 has one.

I agree, the fact is that I didn't notice the text in 3.6.6
included the conditional aspect I sought to add in 3.6.5
(where the "if" is missing), as you suspected.

So Kris, if you add the "if" in 3.6.5 as in 3.6.6, I think we have
a deal.

regards,
Al

At 06:33 AM 7/18/2009, Tom Petch wrote:
>Just picking up on 3.6.5 and 3.6.6, no!;-)
>
>I think that the original 3.6.6. is just fine and wonder if Al has 
>misread it in
>the light of 3.6.5.
>
>3.6.5 does need amending to bring in line with 3.6.6 but it is an additional
>'if' that is needed not a 'when', in just the place where 3.6.6 has one.
>
>Your reformulation I find less clear; better for clarity to put that 
>conditional
>clause earlier rather than later, as you originally did.
>
>Tom Petch
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kris Michielsen" <[e-mail]>
>To: "'Al Morton'" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 4:51 PM
>Subject: Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane drafts
>
>
> > Al,
> >
> > Many thanks for reviewing the draft!
> >
> > See below.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > Behalf Of Al Morton
> > > Sent: 15 July 2009 17:58
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane drafts
> > >
> > > At 01:44 PM 7/14/2009, Al Morton wrote:
> > > >...This message begins a Last call on the IGP-Dataplane Convergence
> > > >Time Benchmarking drafts.
> > > >
> > > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-18
> > > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-18
> > > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-17
> > > >
> > > >The Last Call will end on July 31, 2009.
> > >
> > > Comments on terms-18,
> > > Al (mostly as participant, as chair for section 4)
> > >
> > > I think we now need a definition of the "Start Traffic
> > > Instant" mentioned first in section 3.6.3.  It should be
> > > defined up-front and probably included in Figure 1.
> >
> > I added:
> > ---
> > 3.2.1.  Traffic Start Instant
> >
> >    Definition:
> >
> >    The time instant the Tester sends out the first data packet to the
> >    DUT.
> >
> >    Discussion:
> >
> >    If using the Loss-Derived Method or the Route-Specific Loss-Derived
> >    Method to benchmark IGP convergence time, and the applied Convergence
> >    Event does not cause instantaneous traffic loss for all routes at the
> >    Convergence Event Instant then the Tester SHOULD collect a timestamp
> >    on the Traffic Start Instant in order to measure the period of time
> >    between the Traffic Start Instant and Convergence Event Instant.
> >
> >    Measurement Units:
> >
> >    hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is
> >    microseconds.
> >
> >    Issues: None
> >
> >    See Also:
> >
> >    Convergence Event Instant, Route-Specific Convergence Time, Loss-
> >    Derived Convergence Time.
> > ---
> >
> > I also marked the instant in figure 1
> >
> > >
> > > Section 3.5.1
> > > s/The Offered Load SHOULD consists /The Offered Load SHOULD consist /
> > >
> > > s/Packet Sampling Interval is too high./Packet Sampling
> > > Interval is too large./
> > >
> > > Section 3.5.2
> > > s/The Offered Load SHOULD consists /The Offered Load SHOULD consist /
> >
> > I corrected the above
> >
> > > Section 3.6.5
> > > s/Event, traffic for all routes /Event, when traffic for all routes /
> >
> > Would it be better/more clear if I rephrase the sentence as follows?
> > OLD:
> > The Route Loss of Connectivity Period may be equal to the Route-Specific
>Convergence Time if, as a characteristic of the Convergence
> > Event, traffic for all routes starts dropping instantaneously on the
>Convergence Event Instant.
> >
> > NEW:
> > The Route Loss of Connectivity Period may be equal to the Route-Specific
>Convergence Time if traffic for all routes starts dropping
> > instantaneously on the Convergence Event Instant as a characteristic of the
>Convergence Event.
> >
> > >
> > > Section 3.6.6
> > > s/Event, traffic for all routes /Event, when traffic for all routes /
> >
> > Same as 3.6.5 comment above.
> >
> > >
> > > Section 3.7.6
> > > OLD
> > >     ...The BMWG selected 5 seconds based upon RFC 2544 [Br99]
> > >     which recommends waiting 2 seconds for residual frames to
> > > arrive NEW
> > >     ...The BMWG selected 5 seconds based upon RFC 2544 [Br99]
> > >     which recommends waiting 2 seconds for residual frames to arrive
> > >     (this is the Forwarding Delay Threshold for the last packet sent)
> > >
> >
> > OK
> >
> > > Section 4 Security Considerations
> > > What's all this about SIP?
> > > I suggest to use the "standard" BMWG paragraphs:
> > > >    Benchmarking activities as described in this memo are limited to
> > > >    technology characterization using controlled stimuli in
> > > a laboratory
> > > >    environment, with dedicated address space and the constraints
> > > >    specified in the sections above.
> > > >
> > > >    The benchmarking network topology will be an independent
> > > test setup
> > > >    and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the test
> > > >    traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic
> > > to the test
> > > >    management network.
> > > >
> > > >    Further, benchmarking is performed on a "black-box"
> > > basis, relying
> > > >    solely on measurements observable external to the DUT/SUT.
> > > >
> > > >    Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT
> > > specifically for
> > > >    benchmarking purposes.  Any implications for network
> > > security arising
> > > >    from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in production
> > > >    networks.
> >
> > I corrected it as you suggested.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > bmwg mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bmwg mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>
>_______________________________________________
>bmwg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg