Re: [bmwg] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13: (with COMMENT)

We were asked to respond to any and all comments as quickly as possible so our AD would be able to speak to comments/objections knowledgeably. This request made total sense. 

Brian

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com> 
Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 9:53 AM
To: Carsten Rossenhoevel <cross@eantc.de>
Cc: bmwg@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; bmwg-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13: (with COMMENT)

Hi Carsten,

I think you already got the information about the process and link to attend the Telechat in conversation with other ADs. Anyway adding the link to the process https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions 

No, it is not expected that you need to respond within minutes just before the Telechat. 

Take your time and let me know if you need further help on this matter.

BR

Zahed

On 3 Feb 2022, at 14:37, Carsten Rossenhoevel <cross@eantc.de <mailto:cross@eantc.de> > wrote:

Dear Zaheduzzaman,

Thank you for your comments.  I am getting a bit confused by this process - is it really expected that AD/IESG reviewers post their major comments hours before a decision is going to be made, and the authors have to try and rush responding within minutes?  I apologize that I am unfamiliar with this process.  In other SDOs where I am active, there are typically well-defined, reasonable deadlines and review/response intervals.  This does not delay standardization but improves its quality from my point of view.

We will respond to your other comments soon.

Best regards, Carsten

Am 03.02.2022 um 12:42 schrieb Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker:

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Thanks for the efforts on this specification. I have been part of writing two
testcase documents for real-time congestion control algorithms and understand
getting things in a reasonable shape is hard.

I have similar observation as Murray and Eric when it comes to obsoleting the
previous specification. Hence supporting their discusses.

Some more comments/questions below -

  * Section 5 : what is "packet loss latency" metric? where is it defined? how
  do I measure?

  * Traffic profile is missing in all the benchmark test which is a MUST to
  have. If this is intentional then a rational need to be added.

  * Section 7.3 and 7.7 : The HTTP throughput will look different not only
  because of object size but also how often the request are sent. If the
  requests are sent all at once the resulted throughput may look like a long
  file download and if they are sparse then they will look small downloads in a
  sparse timeline. Here, it is not clear to me what is the intention. Again the
  traffic profile is missing and I am started to think that Section 7.1.3.3
  might be part of Section 7.1.3.2.

  * Section 7.4 and 7.8 : I can have similar view as per my comment on Section
  7.3. This is not clear to me that only object size matter here on the latency.

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

-- 
Carsten Rossenhövel
Managing Director, EANTC AG (European Advanced Networking Test Center)
Salzufer 14, 10587 Berlin, Germany
office +49.30.3180595-21, fax +49.30.3180595-10, mobile +49.177.2505721
cross@eantc.de <mailto:cross@eantc.de> , https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-5a55a80d61bce799 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-5a55a80d61bce799&q=1&e=f53f20d7-64b0-45e4-bc0b-f671e58f8c68&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eantc.de%2F> &q=1&e=f53f20d7-64b0-45e4-bc0b-f671e58f8c68&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eantc.de%2F

Place of Business/Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Germany
Chairman/Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Herbert Almus
Managing Directors/Vorstand: Carsten Rossenhövel, Gabriele Schrenk
Registered: HRB 73694, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Berlin, Germany
EU VAT No: DE812824025