[bmwg] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-08: (with COMMENT)
Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 16 April 2018 19:46 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
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 2DF52126DCA; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth@ietf.org, Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com, bmwg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.78.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152390796412.19681.526742517809994752.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:46:04 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/kPSro6kRo7GYd0kDBvHnWHtNM_U>
Subject: [bmwg] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 19:46:04 -0000
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-08: 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/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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have a few questions, at the No Objection level ... do the right thing, of course. I apologize for attempting to play amateur statistician, but it seems to me that this text 4.7. Test Repeatability To increase the confidence in measured result, it is recommended that each test SHOULD be repeated a minimum of 10 times. is recommending a heuristic, when I'd think that you'd want to repeat a test until the results seem to be converging on some measure of central tendency, given some acceptable margin of error, and this text Procedure: 1. Establish the network connections between controller and network nodes. 2. Query the controller for the discovered network topology information and compare it with the deployed network topology information. 3. If the comparison is successful, increase the number of nodes by 1 and repeat the trial. If the comparison is unsuccessful, decrease the number of nodes by 1 and repeat the trial. 4. Continue the trial until the comparison of step 3 is successful. 5. Record the number of nodes for the last trial (Ns) where the topology comparison was successful. seems to beg for a binary search, especially if you're testing whether a controller can support a large number of controllers ... This text Reference Test Setup: The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1 or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A. or some variation is repeated about 16 times, and I'm not understanding why this is using BCP 14 language, and if BCP 14 language is the right thing to do, I'm not understanding why it's always SHOULD. I get the part that this will help compare results, if two researchers are running the same tests. Is there more to the requirement than that? In this text, Procedure: 1. Perform the listed tests and launch a DoS attack towards controller while the trial is running. Note: DoS attacks can be launched on one of the following interfaces. a. Northbound (e.g., Query for flow entries continuously on northbound interface) b. Management (e.g., Ping requests to controller's management interface) c. Southbound (e.g., TCP SYN messages on southbound interface) is there a canonical description of "DoS attack" that researchers should be using, in order to compare results? These are just examples, right? Is the choice of [OpenFlow Switch Specification] ONF,"OpenFlow Switch Specification" Version 1.4.0 (Wire Protocol 0x05), October 14, 2013. intentional? I'm googling that the current version of OpenFlow is 1.5.1, from 2015.
- [bmwg] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-iet… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [bmwg] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [bmwg] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft… bhuvaneswaran.vengainathan