[bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-15: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 21 June 2017 15:49 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology@ietf.org, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, sbanks@encrypted.net, bmwg@ietf.org, tim.chown@jisc.ac.uk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149806019382.15579.8882065223122169054.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 08:49:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/bC19g76g2ccmLMszSJzBsgEm3Lk>
Subject: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-15: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-15: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

At some point in time, I was wondering if this document was about
(benchmarking) terminology or about (benchmarking) performance metric
definition? And I was wondering what the connection was with the RFC 6390 PMOL
template and with
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-11? When I look at
the section 3 "jitter", there are obvious elements from the PMOL template.
Thinking about it, whether a performance metric is used for benchmark or not,
we need a formal definition. Is it time for: 1. IPPM to finish up
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry 2. start populating the registry 3. BMWG to
start using/specifying those performance metrics

Thoughts?

Below is Tim Chown's OPS DIR review:
verall, the document is well written, and I believe it to be Ready with minor
nits.

General comment:

It would be interesting to see an Appendix with an example of a recorded test
using the language defined here.

Specific comments:

Section 1:

“- Low amount of buffer (in the Mb range)”
Change to MB?  (given later you refer to KB/MB/GB as the measurement unit for
buffers)

Section 2.1

Expand DUT on first use.

Section 3.1

Perhaps clarify relationship of Delay and Latency, since you focus on Latency
in the document and not Delay?

Last para, you say “If” here, but for Latency the FILO timestamp was a MUST in
Section 2?  This doesn’t seem consistent?

Expand PDV on first use.

Section 6.1.1

“1518 bytes frames” -> “1518 byte frames”

Section 7.1,

Why is ‘and’ in quotes here?  Not sure you can say the balance is defined by
goodput?  Do you mean that goodput is an indication of the balance?  For
standard TCP, a very small loss can have a dramatic effect on application
throughput.

The second para should follow the first, change “[RFC2647].  Goodput…” to
“[RFC2647], i.e., goodput…”

Section 7.3

I don’t understand how the example given correlates to G = S/Ft ?

There’s a few typos in this section; please re-check.

[bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benoit Claise
Re: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Lucien