Re: [bmwg] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-13: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Lucien,

On Jun 20, 2017 21:57, "Lucien" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Spencer, Al (+Scott, +Warren), and all,

Thank you for the suggestion. Both drafts have been updated with explaining
what a data center network device unter test is for these tests.

Besides adding more clarity on both abstracts, and introduction, I added
the following text in the introduction section of each draft to specify
what a data center Network DUT is for these drafts.


That's great, and thanks!

Spencer


I hope Scott will appreciate the low buffer comment, as the high
performance data center switches today have significantly less buffer than
other networking devices.

Currently, typical data Center networking devices are characterized
by:

-High port density (48 ports of more)

-High speed (up to 100 Gb/s currently per port)

-High throughput (line rate on all ports for Layer 2 and/or Layer 3)

-Low latency (in the microsecond or nanosecond range)

-Low amount of buffer (in the Mb range)

-Layer 2 and Layer 3 forwarding capability (Layer 3 not mandatory)

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Lucien Avramov <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Definitely agreed, will place a statement in both documents today to
> explain what datacenter switches are at time of writing.
>
> Thank you,
> Lucien
>
> > On Jun 20, 2017, at 13:28, Spencer Dawkins <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-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/iesg/stat
> ement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > (I'm making the same comment on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology and
> > draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology)
> >
> > I'm looking at the ballot positions on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology
> and
> > draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology that assert these documents aren't
> specific
> > to "data centers". That wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not seeing a
> definition
> > of "data center" in either document - did I miss it?
> >
> > I suspect that the authors have specific technical characteristics in
> mind,
> > that happen to map onto what data centers look like today, but may not
> in the
> > future ("RFCs last forever"). Is it possible to tease those
> characteristics out?
> >
> > (Full disclosure: my first working group in the IETF could have been
> called
> > "TCP over cellular links", but it turned out that when we said "cellular
> > links", we meant "low-speed links with high loss rates and asymmetric
> > bandwidth". "Cellular links" in the late 1990s didn't have the same
> > characteristics that "cellular links" have in 2017, but there are other
> link
> > types with those characteristics, so the documents ended up being useful
> in
> > places like CORE. I'm not suggesting anything like a restructure of the
> > document(s), only that they be clear about how future readers would know
> > whether they should be reading them in 2027)
> >
> >
>