Re: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: (with COMMENT)

fyi - I met with Sue about my comments - we came to agreement on a set of changes 
but I have not seen a new version yet

Scott


> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-04: 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 http://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:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As notes by Scott Bradner in his OPS directorate review.
> Some comments/questions on the contents of the draft:
> 
> 
> 1.1 
>  "FIB (Data plane) convergence is defined as the completion of all FIB
>   changes so that all forwarded traffic now takes the new proposed
>   route. "
> 
> should route be singular or plural - i.e. is the assumption that the 
> routing table converges to a single next hop? (at least for the test
> traffic)
> if so, does the draft specifically say that (or does rfc 4098 and I
> missed it)
> note: figure 1 shows multiple peering links - sec 4.1 seems to argue for
> 
> multiple peers
> 
>  "Data plane convergence is different than control plane
>   convergence within a node."
> 
> might want to say how they are different
> 
> 
> since reporting requiremenst are covered in section 6 should
> 	they also be mentioned here? (if so, how about in section 4.2)
> 
> secton 4.4  & 4.8
> 	maybe replace TCP MD5 with TCP Authentication Option (2 places)
> 	or at least mention it
> 
> section 4.4 basic test settings - maybe say why these values were chosen
> 
> 
> section 4.7  agree as to the importance fo rrepeating trials - is 
> there a recognized source that discusses "generally accepted testing 
> practices regarding repeatability ..."?
> 
> section 5 
> 	what about Graceful Restart (RFC 4724) - would that impact the 
> 	clean start desire?
> 
> section 5.1.1
>      "D.  Start the traffic from the Emulator tx towards the DUT
>          targeted at a routes specified in route mixture (ex. routeA)"
> 
> 	change "a routes" to "a route" or "the routes"
> 
> E & F - as noted earlier in the document - these times should be very
> 	close to the same - is it actually worth the additional complexity
> 	to collect the time when the update is received?
> 	also 5.1.2 H & I,  etc
> 
> section 5.1.2 mentions NTP but section 5.1.1 does not - is there a
> reason?
> 
> 
> section 5.2.1 - since the shutdown event is not timed - does this test
> 	provide a useful measurement? (or should the time be recorded and
> 	its just not mentioned?)
> 
> section 5.3 - F - implies that the time is recorded but not actually say
> 	say that it is
> 
> 	general comment - review all steps of all tests to be sure that 
> 	NTP is called for when it is needed  and that event times are 
> 	specifically called for when they are needed and use consistent
> 	langage in each case
> 
> 	the overall requiremenst - e.g. NTP could also just be noted
> 	before the test descriptions and not inlcuded in each one if
> 	it is needed in all of them - same with advice about 
> 	nukbers of routes (do tests with different numbers or routes
> 	up to the full Internet table)
> 
> section 6 - should this also include the number of AS Paths?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg