Re: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: (with COMMENT)
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 03 December 2014 17:34 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291C91A1B17; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 09:34:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.055
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.055 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 5M26e90t7y6g; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 09:34:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (hhc-web3.hickoryhill-consulting.com [64.9.205.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2CBB1A8A0C; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 09:34:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=64.112.195.202;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Bradner, Scott'" <sob@harvard.edu>, 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <20141203142439.14132.76527.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0E1D5B41-F403-4D7B-8553-DD58CBF37B94@harvard.edu>
In-Reply-To: <0E1D5B41-F403-4D7B-8553-DD58CBF37B94@harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 12:33:48 -0500
Message-ID: <059601d00f1f$4c3ea0c0$e4bbe240$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQGFit254pTYOzxUFn2904h3bfXvFAI/nJi2nQEr1CA=
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/fTdQCsCqObUQZpQz7FUg_CSDnp8
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:56:09 -0800
Cc: bmwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, bmwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:34:06 -0000
Scott: I have not sent a second version. I'll send one later today. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Bradner, Scott [mailto:sob@harvard.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 9:32 AM To: Benoit Claise Cc: The IESG; bmwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org; bmwg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: (with COMMENT) fyi - I met with Sue about my comments - we came to agreement on a set of changes but I have not seen a new version yet Scott > On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote: > > Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: 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 > http://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: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > As notes by Scott Bradner in his OPS directorate review. > Some comments/questions on the contents of the draft: > > > 1.1 > "FIB (Data plane) convergence is defined as the completion of all FIB > changes so that all forwarded traffic now takes the new proposed > route. " > > should route be singular or plural - i.e. is the assumption that the > routing table converges to a single next hop? (at least for the test > traffic) > if so, does the draft specifically say that (or does rfc 4098 and I > missed it) > note: figure 1 shows multiple peering links - sec 4.1 seems to argue > for > > multiple peers > > "Data plane convergence is different than control plane > convergence within a node." > > might want to say how they are different > > > since reporting requiremenst are covered in section 6 should > they also be mentioned here? (if so, how about in section 4.2) > > secton 4.4 & 4.8 > maybe replace TCP MD5 with TCP Authentication Option (2 places) > or at least mention it > > section 4.4 basic test settings - maybe say why these values were > chosen > > > section 4.7 agree as to the importance fo rrepeating trials - is > there a recognized source that discusses "generally accepted testing > practices regarding repeatability ..."? > > section 5 > what about Graceful Restart (RFC 4724) - would that impact the > clean start desire? > > section 5.1.1 > "D. Start the traffic from the Emulator tx towards the DUT > targeted at a routes specified in route mixture (ex. routeA)" > > change "a routes" to "a route" or "the routes" > > E & F - as noted earlier in the document - these times should be very > close to the same - is it actually worth the additional complexity > to collect the time when the update is received? > also 5.1.2 H & I, etc > > section 5.1.2 mentions NTP but section 5.1.1 does not - is there a > reason? > > > section 5.2.1 - since the shutdown event is not timed - does this test > provide a useful measurement? (or should the time be recorded and > its just not mentioned?) > > section 5.3 - F - implies that the time is recorded but not actually say > say that it is > > general comment - review all steps of all tests to be sure that > NTP is called for when it is needed and that event times are > specifically called for when they are needed and use consistent > langage in each case > > the overall requiremenst - e.g. NTP could also just be noted > before the test descriptions and not inlcuded in each one if > it is needed in all of them - same with advice about > nukbers of routes (do tests with different numbers or routes > up to the full Internet table) > > section 6 - should this also include the number of AS Paths? > > > _______________________________________________ > bmwg mailing list > bmwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benoit Claise
- Re: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Bradner, Scott
- Re: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Susan Hares