[bmwg] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03: (with COMMENT)

Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 17 December 2020 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAE93A067A; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 05:19:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
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
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <160821117281.16807.17962443853364246619@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 05:19:33 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/WiG4dYhRy03jSpOTLFzwmAop5x0>
Subject: [bmwg] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:19:33 -0000

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03: 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/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Hi Al,

Thanks for this document.  I mostly found it easy to read with just a few minor

I agree with Murray's comment that there seems more text capitalized than is
potentially helpful.  Possible words/phrases to check: Obsolete, "Back-to-back
Frames" except when used for "Back-to-back Frame Benchmark", "Data Center",
"Throughput", "Ingress", "Egress", "Frames", "Buffer"

Section 2, para 3:

   conditions simultaneously sending multiple frame sizes, such as those
   described in [RFC6985], MUST NOT be used in Back-to-back Frame

I found this sentence slightly hard to parse, rephrasing it might aid

In section 6, it states "The number of tests Averaged for the Benchmark, N,
MUST be reported."  Should that be illustrated in the "Back-to-Back Frame
Results" table, either as part of the table, or as extra information alongside