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

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame/



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

Hi Al,

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

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:

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

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

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
it?

Regards,
Rob