Re: [bmwg] AD Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance

[[e-mail]]

Warren,

 

Thank you. And, of course, you suggested changes are fine.

 

Brian

 

From: Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 10:37 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance

 

Hi there all,

 

I'd like to apologize to the authors and WG for how long it has taken me to post this review; I read the document a while back, but forgot to post it :-(

 

I only had a few editorial / readability suggestions -- they are sufficiently minor (and I'm embarrassed by how long my review took!) that I'll kick off LC without asking for a new version -- authors, please consider them if you post a new version addressing LC comments, or to address IESG Eval comments.

 

Chairs / Al: The document state is listed as: "Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway" - I'm assuming that this is from: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/EonLD10nf0xQfWzHt0YT0QDK6lU - can you please confirm (LOUDLY) that this is OK now and I'll kick off LC.

 

 

W

 

 

1.  Introduction
 
   18 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
   terminology for firewalls initially ([RFC3511]).  The requirements
   for network security element performance and effectiveness have
   increased tremendously since then.  Security function implementations
[O] 18 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
   terminology for firewalls initially ([RFC3511]).  The requirements
   for network security element performance and effectiveness have
   increased tremendously since then.
[P] In the eighteen years since [RFC3511] was published, recommending test methodology and terminology for firewalls, requirements and expectations for network security elements has increased tremendously.
   have evolved to more advanced areas and have diversified into
   intrusion detection and prevention, threat management, analysis of
   encrypted traffic, etc.  In an industry of growing importance, well-
   defined, and reproducible key performance indicators (KPIs) are
   increasingly needed as they enable fair and reasonable comparison of
[O] as they enable
[P] to enable


   network security functions. 

 

 

 

-- 

Perhaps they really do strive for incomprehensibility in their specs.
After all, when the liturgy was in Latin, the laity knew their place.
-- Michael Padlipsky