[bmwg] Comments for draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-00

Timothy Carlin <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu> Fri, 08 November 2019 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7DF71200F9 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 05:58:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iol.unh.edu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k2cDwSTlLVi8 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 05:58:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x335.google.com (mail-wm1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 609E412003F for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 05:58:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x335.google.com with SMTP id c22so6347016wmd.1 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 05:58:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Z1k1wilyqVtpc72SL2iU1OGExEk74AFuEnPRaxpwEvo=; b=HA3lUZ7AiB8BxYSnsbF84q705IzLhgiPPrjjkcoDnZqrl3L1ExVSXpaJRCWtjwOhO7 U/Sbv3+hfwE/MFfN7xVlLIeH/h5voLO1qwZHFyhMvow2zf7fpOmz1Ax6f1SVqvu7LUQp Du38yH454Qd9Ax9hBJNs3ND44LXfABV3HI3mM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Z1k1wilyqVtpc72SL2iU1OGExEk74AFuEnPRaxpwEvo=; b=s7gNqjq+h1GxIvf/1s4kIVkOLiaUQoOCCzlEg47DcbV9aDw7ANAwnwIb41xV+GVMpv dsBeTFVcMU1syLR1+RwrANdQPub/cPHQicRAKl6f8oyGeTyboZ90rN6cWg+8pbv2XgjT 0r+/3+XbMG3q0mCYnbEd10G6zg29okjnaN10ZE4uwbm3i1gIfLl0xDCIUyDuVggbaQvh ggCY2hEjVrPbg/IibYISrQ6fzk375JfzgBHVmsGksQVj66hcD2sUO8x7ZYUE7VPYHCda hN/TDpOBrJdLdTxQNBiE8FJxP5hWcmxR2BABR4bVJHgcvb959/pNd0nttClNSLr/Mewl M72g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXQz3EkJbsGO7qCs14dbkcfjeQaYLkP7HY/G9KD49QtmM91wQRG z9jRR7WlRcQRlYqz5/pMF7OzOSIM2GRygD1jf2oyvER05lE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwCYEuERsdOXwlRf3RdXqssDJGZNhmdK7yLmToAbViR4JWzduAQsbMQEnwL1V7kZlOsddbqspHOP3dk36L3FQk=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c858:: with SMTP id c24mr8792107wml.174.1573221497050; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 05:58:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Timothy Carlin <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:57:41 -0500
Message-ID: <CAB-aFv_pf-0oTsxXoN-F1EaMbnmDk1s_Ep_PjhTGv04YrMaiyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007c38220596d62cb2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/XTRSH_b5owiS2euwXUY1B4IdCE4>
Subject: [bmwg] Comments for draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-00
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:58:22 -0000

Hi bmwg,

This is somewhat late for IETF 106 but I have just a few comments regarding
draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-00.  I think this draft is well written and a
valuable addition.

Best Regards,
Tim Carlin

* Section 3, item #2: re: "The Back-to-back Frame length reported for large
frame sizes..." I'm not familiar with the experiment results, but it's not
clear to me if "length" is referring to the number of frames, or the
average size of those frames, or something else.  This may just be a
misunderstanding on my part, ignore if that's the case!

* Section 3 excerpt: typo in parenthetical "cannot exceed the exceed"

>    Further, if the Throughput tests of Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] are
>    conducted as a prerequisite test, the number of frame sizes required
>    for Back-to-back Frame Benchmarking can be reduced to one or more of
>    the small frame sizes, or the results for large frame sizes can be
>    noted as invalid in the results if tested anyway (these are the frame
>    sizes for which the back-to-back frame rate cannot exceed the exceed
>    the frame header processing rate of the DUT and no buffering occurs).

* Section 4 excerpt: typo "sender and recover"

>    The Test Setup MUST be consistent with Figure 1 of [RFC2544], or
>    Figure 2 when the tester's sender and recover are different devices.