Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-02.txt
Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Thu, 02 August 2012 01:37 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6CD11E815F for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nUGlONHgA906 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com [209.65.160.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240EB11E8156 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-10) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 7d9d9105.0.1042805.00-300.2888424.nbfkord-smmo03.seg.att.com (envelope-from <acmorton@att.com>); Thu, 02 Aug 2012 01:37:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 5019d9d86d8608c8-e3cd7ff8cf1804892525ab0bf92ef74aa59f2100
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q721bRRm005893 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:37:27 -0400
Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q721bNrG005884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:37:23 -0400
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:37:15 -0400
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q721bFKJ003144 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:37:15 -0400
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q721b9BA002992 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 21:37:10 -0400
Message-Id: <201208020137.q721b9BA002992@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-229-70.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.229.70](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120802013237gw10025cuve>; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:32:38 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.229.70]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:36:40 -0400
To: Tom Alexander <talexander@ixiacom.com>, Mike Hamilton <mhamilton@breakingpoint.com>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>, "Sarah Banks (sabanks)" <sabanks@cisco.com>
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <1113A19AC2AB4C4FB562BDA89BAD16061DD6A61B@CH1PRD0611MB420.n amprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1113A19AC2AB4C4FB562BDA89BAD16061DD66430@CH1PRD0611MB420.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <CC3D6320.1912A%mhamilton@breakingpoint.com> <1113A19AC2AB4C4FB562BDA89BAD16061DD6A61B@CH1PRD0611MB420.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <acmorton@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=kWjf3B4woD0A:10 a=Em-GPoKl-bwA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3]
X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8]
X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=gVxl2Hgl3OeETxjuawwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10]
Subject: Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-02.txt
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 02 Aug 2012 01:37:29 -0000
At 02:21 PM 7/31/2012, Tom Alexander wrote: >Hello, Mike, > >Thanks for incorporating my feedback. The -03 draft looks very good >and I have no further comments. > >Best regards, > >- Tom Mike and Sarah, I read the draft on the flight-out, and have the following comments. (these are comments on the version 02 text, sorry I couldn't keep up with your really fast update...) Al (as a participant) -=-=-=-=- end of Section 1: ... The nature of application-driven networks is such that a single dropped packet inherently changes the input stimulus from a network perspective. While application flows will be specified in great detail, it simply is not practical to require totally repeatable input stimulus. It seems that the input stimulus *should* be repeatable when there is no loss. Whether the measured results are repeatable or not depends on the DUT. When there is loss (in overload) the input will change (TCP connections will react, etc.), and the offered load will change thus the measured result will change. Therefore several trials at the same conditions will be needed along with averaging. ----- Section 2 Scope, 2nd para. ... None of the metrics captured through this methodology are specific to a device and the results are DUT implementation independent. Suggest a device and the format of the results are DUT implementation independent. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Question of this sentence: If this wasn't what you were thinking, then I don't understand what we are testing - the results must be dependent on the DUT implementation, but the design of the test must not be. Further down, para 3: ... While this list may become obsolete, these are a subset of devices that fall under this scope of testing. s/of devices/of all devices/ ------- In 3.7.3. TCP Stack Considerations, It seems to me that the scenario of DUT as TCP Middlebox is a likely candidate for these methods, and probably should be mentioned explicitly here (since TCP options and other parameters might change and affect the testing - these facts need to be measured and noted). ------- In 4.1.1. Objective To determine the maximum rate through which a device is able to s/through/at/ establish and complete application flows as defined by draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-term-00. Is this under loss-less conditions? failure-less conditions? ------- In 4.1.3. Procedure ... This procedure MAY be repeated any reasonable number of times with the results being averaged together. and the Standard Deviation SHOULD also be reported (I think) ------
- [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-… internet-drafts
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-m… Mike Hamilton
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-m… Ilya Varlashkin
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-m… Aamer Akhter (aakhter)
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-m… Tom Alexander
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-m… Mike Hamilton
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-m… Tom Alexander
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-m… Al Morton
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-m… Chuck McAuley
- Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-m… Al Morton