[bmwg] AD Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Wed, 15 December 2021 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 AB97E3A090B for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 07:38:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari.net
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 PCzQzsVWlBFL for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 07:38:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 639753A0912 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 07:38:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id v15so34015484ljc.0 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 07:38:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari.net; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=TvVNW5rj6ypwZQptVpG3CRevCq7krCdsLEMAHYMvllc=; b=Rv7szW3mDq2Vfux7WIzfBrWnlG7yQUl9nR1d3CW8ylSC7dJyeEoOkV392PftZaA/py QSre1Jnc4bt6d49wovWzuAyuWZwDhccb8BY0UVW/Z0moYj+2v2IBSemDVbAixDkTSeu0 W5GFe0xEA9T8U+9WyWAAoEvLcTfBjDnTM5osEl0BvLUVNwLGSy9Og4k6OHqi13s+z2Dk wdN8PMHa1bp63KxQcKvHyQZAJ7lp9l9K5uq1m9UjrjaDE9BpJkqHzruFKyZFHk5ysQSj TquwlsoIJ+0XmYN6krcRQrOU0w+/WkwZ1ZYetUeI7BIPTNoU8yQueT/dcJiwQmHFexVd Fp4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=TvVNW5rj6ypwZQptVpG3CRevCq7krCdsLEMAHYMvllc=; b=x14HcK8oFlMuovz4pPXhTnvFZIu2mYVNl+tJauofYFy8oLpadakyg5Q7P6wbyes4XN vPqnTn2eFyT5EpI0G05GWYJ+eAr/Li9eFMeCCv46gY0tWaY4HQj0uGJbrzhJGf4wAcx+ b2yCNg1bO+CGwhRNK9n/RAURKxclvYWjwIeLcOiAaI10egVvtmgWHDTYmud4jmlnVYy/ jvRQ3bQlMDoiIB+uFktEaHx/17/fXBdsKiG39bzLm4ntRijwdMPYdZO1Y6MCuf/RwpsH 1HQAJNmxdXO0KQvWP9pPT+WoZkTd+Gn6Xcs9JuWvWfvP6bHX6mqzrNdiDDfsN3ud77k6 hQsg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533WZghadbnoPgdknG4EHc/cR3TXZvB8pvoeK7BPtB9UX18KPTx+ txRH5mKczhWbTNeWFcqPjwmJWh5h0S9wBDwsL8S8/SCitzb7Sg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyg2HE+cYS9lkwDOo9M6wGkqTxo4mPjypXBEEqVdfo9FezjZS4dTp/4isFv0ZtLSF4dVGz36Wm6AYhRoX++PMg=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9a8c:: with SMTP id p12mr10511338lji.526.1639582685228; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 07:38:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 10:37:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iJxxM5PM+MFv=u_GZPM8_frZDW70NzTtpdX4aa6=r+faA@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000888a6005d3311759"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/kYLunijKZAzDpoFkAWG6R9n7uoc>
Subject: [bmwg] AD Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:38:15 -0000

Hi there all,

I'd like to apologize to the authors and WG for how long it has taken me to
post this review; I read the document a while back, but forgot to post it
:-(

I only had a few editorial / readability suggestions -- they are
sufficiently minor (and I'm embarrassed by how long my review took!) that
I'll kick off LC without asking for a new version -- authors, please
consider them if you post a new version addressing LC comments, or to
address IESG Eval comments.

Chairs / Al: The document state is listed as: "Doc Shepherd Follow-up
Underway" - I'm assuming that this is from:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/EonLD10nf0xQfWzHt0YT0QDK6lU -
can you please confirm (LOUDLY) that this is OK now and I'll kick off LC.


W


1.  Introduction

   18 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
   terminology for firewalls initially ([RFC3511]).  The requirements
   for network security element performance and effectiveness have
   increased tremendously since then.  Security function implementations

[O] 18 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and

   terminology for firewalls initially ([RFC3511]).  The requirements
   for network security element performance and effectiveness have
   increased tremendously since then.
[P] In the eighteen years since [RFC3511] was published, recommending
test methodology and terminology for firewalls, requirements and
expectations for network security elements has increased tremendously.

   have evolved to more advanced areas and have diversified into
   intrusion detection and prevention, threat management, analysis of
   encrypted traffic, etc.  In an industry of growing importance, well-
   defined, and reproducible key performance indicators (KPIs) are
   increasingly needed as they enable fair and reasonable comparison of

[O] as they enable
[P] to enable

   network security functions.




-- 
Perhaps they really do strive for incomprehensibility in their specs.
After all, when the liturgy was in Latin, the laity knew their place.
-- Michael Padlipsky