[bmwg] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-18: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 06 July 2017 16:19 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149935798082.2314.17643132036300096214.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 09:19:40 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/e_1MGyG_PRhwFM1mI96lMS4PY6Y>
Subject: [bmwg] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-18: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-18: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarifying the differences to the tests in RFC2889 addresses my discuss. Thanks
and sorry for the delay! I still think describing these tests in a more general
form and then (just) discuss if there are specific things to consider when
applying these tests for dc testing would have been the better approach but I
do understand well that this work only focussed on dc so far and it would be
quite some more work to make it more generic.

-----

Old comments:

Please provide the appropriate references for DSCP and COS!

Also I find the name of section 6 confusing ("Incast Stateful and Stateless
Traffic ") because your microburst test (section 4) is basically also incast
testing but without TCP cross-traffic. Further the terms stateful and stateless
are also confusing to me; I'd usually use adaptive and constant bit rate
(CBR)/non-adaptive; or is stateful/stateless the commonly-used term in
benchmarking?

[bmwg] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ie… Mirja Kühlewind