Re: [bmwg] AD Evaluation for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking

Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro> Tue, 18 April 2017 07:57 UTC

Return-Path: <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3807C1243F6; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=rcs-rds.ro
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 MhCxuu_njETq; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailproxy3.rcs-rds.ro (mailproxy3.rcs-rds.ro [212.54.120.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFB9C1317C7; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.172.177.179] (unknown [10.172.177.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailproxy3.rcs-rds.ro (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD3CFC3E28; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:57:33 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=rcs-rds.ro; s=MailProxy; t=1492502253; bh=XwJ0hv/ShLw0F8hvmVREf5rFcxzUqt/m4S2BG2TgO7E=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=lpz2LkpUUGPr4VGBJ+sVZ2j/P4FVXL0CMcW/Gi1y0HnT45LQCYXnNnk1Cl2REWUZe sT35KIXmsWZqAfP37EPTUwKIt9cYqVF6s6X9DGbIkw1f+TWbpZR+/+OoOSHyk4m7gm aaMSI0I2AQay/pjrnxi04t2M8YEVBoq8nstSMZro=
From: Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro>
Message-Id: <C7D080C6-E54B-49F9-BB09-B7F6126D6237@rcs-rds.ro>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1435E284-C185-44DE-A770-626C1B94F2ED"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:57:24 +0300
In-Reply-To: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF25F70C23@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, "bmwg-chairs@ietf.org" <bmwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking@ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
To: Alfred C Morton <acmorton@att.com>
References: <CAHw9_iJ+PcuJVS3ougbFUQkT0OwmEXbRVqy=44bORwUHar-FzQ@mail.gmail.com> <ADC8E1B6-CEC2-42CE-9BB8-F4A8EE8630EF@rcs-rds.ro> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF25F70C23@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/i5-Ctq4LbRQBzAUVYsossALSMHE>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] AD Evaluation for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <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: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:57:40 -0000

Hello Al,

Thank you for your kind help with this draft.
The revised version covers the received comments.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06>
If there are any other issues, please let us know.

Best regards,
Marius

> On Apr 15, 2017, at 3:56 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marius,
> 
> Since all ADs read *many* documents, it is universally
> preferred to respond quickly as you've done, and follow-up
> with a revised version in this case (and when requested
> in the steps that follow). 
> 
> When the revised version is available, the next step will 
> likely be an IETF-wide Last Call. This is when the various 
> Directorates that help the Area Directors will review 
> the draft, and there will be some more comments as a result.
> 
> After Last Call, the draft will be scheduled for an IESG
> telechat, and the other Area Directors will likely provide 
> even more comments. Prompt replies and resolving text will
> again keep your draft moving.
> 
> If you have any questions as we proceed, don't hesitate to
> get in touch.
> 
> regards,
> Al
> bmwg co-chair and doc shepherd
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marius Georgescu
>> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:35 AM
>> To: Warren Kumari
>> Cc: bmwg-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-
>> benchmarking@ietf.org; bmwg@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [bmwg] AD Evaluation for draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-
>> benchmarking
>> 
>> Hello Warren,
>> 
>> Thank you very much for your kind words and for the detailed review.
>> We will revise the draft considering the Shepherd writeup and your
>> comments.
>> Is there a deadline we should be aware of?
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Marius
>> 
>>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi there,
>>> 
>>> First off, thanks for a really well written document -- I've done some
>>> benchmarking of routers and switches and similar, but never and
>>> translation devices. This document explains how I would benchmark this
>>> nicely.
>>> 
>>> I had a few minor nits which I think would be nice if you could
>>> address before I start IETF LC - this should help the document sail
>>> though the process.
>>> While addressing these, there are also 2 editorial notes in the
>>> Shepherd writeup, both (IMO) easy to address.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> W
>>> 
>>> Section 1:
>>> "ability to gracefully accommodate greater numbers of flows
>>>  than the maximum number of flows which the DUT can operate
>> normally."
>>> 
>>> [O] DUT
>>> [P] [spell out DUT]
>>> [R] first use of the acronym
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Section 1.1. IPv6 Transition Technologies
>>> "4. Encapsulation: The production network is assumed to have all three
>>> domains, Domains A and B are IPvX specific, while the core ..."
>>> 
>>> [O] three domains, Domains A and B
>>> [P] three domains; Domains A and B
>>> [R] grammar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Section 5.1. Frame Formats and Sizes
>>> 
>>> "The two documents can be referred for the dual-stack transition
>> technologies."
>>> 
>>> [O] referred
>>> [P] referenced
>>> [R] not sure what is meant; referenced is just a guess here. Or
>>> "referred to"? Nither sounds great.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "The calculation method for the Ethernet, as well as a calculation
>>> example are detailed in Appendix A. "
>>> 
>>> [O] calculation example are
>>> [P] calculation example, are
>>> [R] grammar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Section 6. Modifiers
>>> 
>>>  The idea of testing under different operational conditions was first
>>>  introduced in [RFC2544](Section 11) and represents an important
>>>  aspect of benchmarking network elements, as it emulates to some
>>>  extent the conditions of a production environment. Section 6 of
>>> 
>>> [O]  as it emulates to some extent the
>>> [P] as it emulates, to some extent, the
>>> [R] grammar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Section 8. Additional Benchmarking Tests for Stateful IPv6 Transition
>>> Technologies
>>> 
>>>  This section describes additional tests dedicated to the stateful
>>>  IPv6 transition technologies. For the tests described in this
>>>  section the DUT devices SHOULD follow the test setup and test
>>> 
>>> [O] section the DUT device
>>> [P] section, the DUT device
>>> [R] grammar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - If the DNS64 server implements caching and there is a cache hit
>>>       then step 1 is followed by step 6 (and steps 2 through 5 are
>>>       omitted).
>>> - If the domain name has an AAAA record then it is returned in
>>> 
>>> [O] If the domain name has an AAAA record then it is returned
>>> [P] If the domain name has an AAAA record, then it is returned
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (When all the domain names are cached then the results do not depend
>>> on what percentage of the ...
>>> 
>>> [O] are cached then the
>>> [P] are cached, the
>>> [R] readability
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (When all the domain names
>>>  are cached then the results do not depend on what percentage of the
>>>  domain names have AAAA records, thus these combinations are not
>>>  worth testing one by one.)
>>> [O] are cached then the
>>> [P] are cached, the
>>> [R] readability
>>> 
>>> 
>>> queries at the required frequency using up not more than the half of
>>> the timeout time.
>>> 
>>>  Remark: a sample open-source test program, dns64perf++ is available
>>> 
>>> [O] dns64perf++ is
>>> [P] dns64perf++, is
>>> [R] grammar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For encapsulation transition technologies a m:n setup can be
>>> 
>>> [O]  For encapsulation transition technologies
>>> [P]  For encapsulation transition technologies,
>>> [R] grammar
>>> 
>>>  created, where m is the number of flows applied to the same client
>>>  device and n the number of client devices connected to the same
>>>  server device.
>>>  For the translation based transition technologies the client devices
>>> 
>>> [O] For the translation based transition technologies the client
>>> [P] For the translation based transition technologies, the client
>>> [R] grammar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In other words, if flow I is started at time x, flow i+1
>>> 
>>> [O] flow I is started at time x, flow i+1
>>> [R] I and i should be consistent; either use upper or lower case. Same
>>> for other variables.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Section 11. NAT44 and NAT66
>>> 
>>>  Although these technologies are not the primarily scope of this
>>> 
>>> [O] the primarily scope
>>> [P] the primary scope
>>> [R] word choice
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Section 12. Summarizing function and variation
>>> 
>>> For a fine grain analysis of the frequency distribution of the data,
>>> 
>>> [O] fine grain analysis
>>> [P] fine grained analysis
>>> [R] word choice
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
>>> idea in the first place.
>>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
>>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
>>> of pants.
>>>  ---maf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> bmwg mailing list
>> bmwg@ietf.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bmwg&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-
>> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=AUvQF5fSs3nruuM6VEndHNo4IEW
>> FISyixgNCDlimEFk&s=wgtEceg7IsJIzEfu1N0VBNJcuYUx4X7fqNHAJmsV2AE&e=