Re: [bmwg] Comments on IGP Data Plane Conv Terminology

Al,

Great suggestions.  We will incorporate them all for the 01 version.

Scott

At 10:49 PM 7/9/2003 -0400, Al Morton wrote:
>Scott,
>
>Here are some suggestions for the Terminology draft:
>
>This text can be thinned-out by removing nearby redundancy.
>For example, section 3.2 Protocol Convergence has almost identical
>sentences in the Discussion and Issues sections.
>Also, a single sentence under section 3 saying "All measurements
>defined below are externally observable, unless noted."
>reduces repetition.
>
>It may help to change the names of the different convergence time
>metrics to emphasize how they differ.  Consider:
>
>3.4   Full Convergence Time ==> Rate-Derived Convergence Time
>
>3.6   Average Convergence Time ==> Loss-Derived Convergence Time
>(in this last one, it is a bit awkward to use a statistic in the name,
>and we might find ourselves reporting the Average Average Convergence Time)
>
>Also, it will help to add more rigor to the time interval definitions.
>You need to define the measurement criteria for the interval start time
>and end time.  For section 3.4, this might be:
>Definition:
>The minimum time interval beginning at the start of a measurement sample
>with less than the maximum forwarding rate, and ending at the
>start of the first measurement interval that returns to maximum
>forwarding rate following a route convergence event.
>(certainly not the final text, but I think you'll get the idea)
>
>You might consider re-defining the Route Convergence Event Slope
>(and other slopes) as "Transition Time", too.  Slope implies a
>Rise over Run format, and the slope may not be constant.
>
>hope this helps,
>Al
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>bmwg mailing list
>bmwg@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg