[bmwg] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the efforts on this specification. I have been part of writing two
testcase documents for real-time congestion control algorithms and understand
getting things in a reasonable shape is hard.

I have similar observation as Murray and Eric when it comes to obsoleting the
previous specification. Hence supporting their discusses.

Some more comments/questions below -

  * Section 5 : what is "packet loss latency" metric? where is it defined? how
  do I measure?

  * Traffic profile is missing in all the benchmark test which is a MUST to
  have. If this is intentional then a rational need to be added.

  * Section 7.3 and 7.7 : The HTTP throughput will look different not only
  because of object size but also how often the request are sent. If the
  requests are sent all at once the resulted throughput may look like a long
  file download and if they are sparse then they will look small downloads in a
  sparse timeline. Here, it is not clear to me what is the intention. Again the
  traffic profile is missing and I am started to think that Section 7.1.3.3
  might be part of Section 7.1.3.2.

  * Section 7.4 and 7.8 : I can have similar view as per my comment on Section
  7.3. This is not clear to me that only object size matter here on the latency.