[bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 01 July 2021 06:39 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D843A16EC; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 23:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest@ietf.org, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.33.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <162512154570.25081.5963216218579186608@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 23:39:05 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/gJaK0izyReLnazTKgvKHKJQeV3w>
Subject: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 06:39:06 -0000
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: Discuss 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The tests in Sections 3.3, 3.4, 4.3, and 4.4 each define two distinct things to be measured, but they appear to refer to themselves using a common name. Feels like some text copy-paste happened here from previous sections, but wasn't fully developed. For instance, Section 3.3 says: Measure the time taken for flushing these X MAC addresses. Measure the time taken to relearn these X MAC in DUT. The test is repeated for N times and the values are collected. The flush and the relearning time is calculated by averaging the values obtained by N samples. N is an arbitrary number to get a sufficient sample. The time measured for each sample is denoted by T1,T2...Tn. The measurement is carried out using external server which polls the DUT using automated scripts which measures the MAC counter value with timestamp. Flush rate = (T1+T2+..Tn)/N Relearning rate = (T1+T2+..Tn)/N So you finish the definition appearing to define two distinct things using the same arithmetic over a single time series. In other words, you call two different time series by the same name, and then give an identical formal definition for what are really two different measurements. It seems to me what you actually meant was for these to be, maybe, "F1+F2+..+Fn" for the flush rate and "R1+R2+..+Rn" for the relearning rate, which makes it clear they are distinct quantities. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support Martin and Eric's DISCUSS positions about how some of the tests are characterized. Like Eric, I found the number of typos, capitalization mistakes, and sentence fragments to be distracting. Though its coverage of the WG process was good, the shepherd writeup declares the document status but avoided answering the other questions about its status (e.g., "Why is this the proper type of RFC?"). This seems to be a common omission, and I'm starting to wonder if we should just drop it from the template. I think RFC 7432 and RFC 7623 should be normative, insofar as this document doesn't really make sense unless one understands those first. Please use the correct boilerplate for BCP 14. (See RFC 8174, Section 2.) However, I also note that the only place the key words are used is Section 7, so it occurs to me you could avoid using BCP 14 altogether and basically say the same thing with the same force. Section 1.2 defines "All-Active Redundancy Mode", but it's not used anywhere in this document other than its own definition. Similarly, "AA", "ES", "Ethernet Tag", "RT", and "Sub interface" don't appear anywhere else. "Single-Active Redundancy Mode" could be folded into the definition of "SA", since the latter is actually used elsewhere.
- [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-b… Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Sudhin
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Sudhin
- Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ie… Murray S. Kucherawy