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

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Tue, 12 March 2019 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <acm@research.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 749D7130E66 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 07:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.132
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_DYNAMIC=1.468, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ncEuBka82VMv for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 07:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D70F130E46 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 07:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049463.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x2CEtv9F019486; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:57:03 -0400
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2r6etq0ch8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:57:02 -0400
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x2CEv11W010594; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:57:01 -0500
Received: from zlp30496.vci.att.com (zlp30496.vci.att.com [135.46.181.157]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x2CEuunT010495; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:56:57 -0500
Received: from zlp30496.vci.att.com (zlp30496.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30496.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id CEE9A4009E7A; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:56:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30496.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id AC7914009E74; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:56:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x2CEuujj003466; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:56:56 -0500
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.178.11]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x2CEuhd0002964; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 09:56:44 -0500
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F2E404FC4; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:56:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:56:13 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "lucien.avramov@gmail.com" <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>, "jhrapp@gmail.com" <jhrapp@gmail.com>, "ibagdona@gmail.com" <ibagdona@gmail.com>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>, "sbanks@encrypted.net" <sbanks@encrypted.net>
CC: "nmalykh@ieee.org" <nmalykh@ieee.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8239 (5652)
Thread-Index: AQHU2N9Ip/lNPaTbpUOH9UOC9R4aEKYIEO3w
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:56:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF6C003A8D@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <20190312142436.DFB42B82A82@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190312142436.DFB42B82A82@rfc-editor.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [69.141.203.172]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-03-12_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903120105
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/_zZOrFmBwGq3dc5Pfb833tmLSGk>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8239 (5652)
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: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:57:10 -0000

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:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:25 AM
> To: lucien.avramov@gmail.com; jhrapp@gmail.com; ibagdona@gmail.com;
> warren@kumari.net; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>om>;
> sbanks@encrypted.net
> Cc: nmalykh@ieee.org; bmwg@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
> 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 <nmalykh@ieee.org>
> 
> 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