Re: [bmwg] Comments for draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-00

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <> Sat, 09 November 2019 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209CE120137 for <>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 09:31:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kp2cy2afh8i8 for <>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 09:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC72612001E for <>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 09:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id xA9HPbQa035341; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 12:31:22 -0500
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2w5wam62at-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 09 Nov 2019 12:31:22 -0500
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xA9HVLTU104299; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:31:21 -0600
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xA9HVFMo104150 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:31:16 -0600
Received: from ( []) by (Service) with ESMTP id C1E7E4009E82; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 17:31:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Service) with ESMTP id A3BE04009E80; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 17:31:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xA9HVFL8013921; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:31:15 -0600
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xA9HV924013427; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:31:09 -0600
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CBA6E3681; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 12:27:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 12:30:53 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <>
To: Timothy Carlin <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bmwg] Comments for draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-00
Thread-Index: AQHVljySR31+eHwuNUy+OtDh9fW0FKeDFt8w
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 17:30:31 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6EEEEB2njmtexg5researc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-09_06:, , 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=8.0.1-1910280000 definitions=main-1911090179
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Comments for draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 17:31:26 -0000

Hi Tim,
Thanks for your comments; they are not too late as I
overlooked others and have a working version ready
for the Monday when Submission opens-up again.

Meanwhile, we can discuss here as necessary.
Please see below,
(as a participant)

From: bmwg [] On Behalf Of Timothy Carlin
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 8:58 AM
Subject: [bmwg] Comments for draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-00

Hi bmwg,

This is somewhat late for IETF 106 but I have just a few comments regarding draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-00.  I think this draft is well written and a valuable addition.

Best Regards,
Tim Carlin

* Section 3, item #2: re: "The Back-to-back Frame length reported for large frame sizes..." I'm not familiar with the experiment results, but it's not clear to me if "length" is referring to the number of frames, or the average size of those frames, or something else.  This may just be a misunderstanding on my part, ignore if that's the case!
Length refers to the number of frames in the B2B stream (burst).
In the particular DUT & cases tested, the B2B frame rate
for large frames was less than the maximum packet header
processing rate, and the DUT just kept increasing number of
frames until it reached and reported a number of frames that
corresponded to 30 seconds buffer time (impossible).

I clarified the text.

* Section 3 excerpt: typo in parenthetical "cannot exceed the exceed"
   Further, if the Throughput tests of Section 26.1 of [RFC2544] are
   conducted as a prerequisite test, the number of frame sizes required
   for Back-to-back Frame Benchmarking can be reduced to one or more of
   the small frame sizes, or the results for large frame sizes can be
   noted as invalid in the results if tested anyway (these are the frame
   sizes for which the back-to-back frame rate cannot exceed the exceed
   the frame header processing rate of the DUT and no buffering occurs).

* Section 4 excerpt: typo "sender and recover"
   The Test Setup MUST be consistent with Figure 1 of [RFC2544], or
   Figure 2 when the tester's sender and recover are different devices.

Thanks for those catches!