Re: [bmwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8239 (5652)

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Authors,

In a quick review, the proposed change appears to 
concentrate the oversubscription traffic at the
N-1 egress port.

Another fix could be (changing the first designation of the egress port,
and highlighting that there are both ingress and egress port N here):

OLD
       o  Last iteration: Ingress port N-2 sending line rate to egress
          port N-1, while port N is sending a known low amount of ...
Suggest
       o  Last iteration: Ingress port N-2 sending line rate to egress
          port N, while ingress port N is sending a known low amount of ...

But there is some adaptation needed from previous steps because 
N is the *last* port, so the egress port N should be tested in the 
last iteration, AFAICT.

Let us know what you think.
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFC Errata System [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:25 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8239 (5652)
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8239,
> "Data Center Benchmarking Methodology".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-
> 2Deditor.org_errata_eid5652&d=DwIBaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=LxASF7NaQP_D9pzHXIbGJ6hUXBu5E
> beKiJwvXf1ur84&s=JISNNUf8r8-ZwJkApM9cfoP8T-V2OoAYCvcNSiyymmA&e=
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 3.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>       o  Last iteration: Ingress port N-2 sending line rate to egress
>          port N-1, while port N is sending a known low amount of
>          oversubscription traffic (1% recommended) with the same packet
>          size to egress port N.  Measure the buffer size value by
>          multiplying the number of extra frames sent by the frame size.
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>       o  Last iteration: Ingress port N-2 sending line rate to egress
>          port N-1, while port N is sending a known low amount of
>          oversubscription traffic (1% recommended) with the same packet
>          size to egress port N-1.  Measure the buffer size value by
>          multiplying the number of extra frames sent by the frame size.
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Incorrect number of the output port for oversubscription traffic.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8239 (draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-18)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Data Center Benchmarking Methodology
> Publication Date    : August 2017
> Author(s)           : L. Avramov, J. Rapp
> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> Source              : Benchmarking Methodology
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG