Re: [bmwg] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06

Sarah Banks <> Wed, 26 April 2017 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF73131491; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UngOZXbxf_3e; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:27:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 196D0124B0A; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m34so1441646oik.2; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=IKasMraTRyvHWJ8U7oqEhFKH4QCq8fy89khGsA2KoEA=; b=q+Khg7PM6cHv+h6kIywxgD3N625KZZ+0dgw/qFTDraneg+3tohcuDHhLcDyidvxRaW VeKtoKnGUEWVqzdpwe7qYxS5gbh8PXMMkYCLW1FYRwJQB/5JLTezRgimyQ813GB8DjeS rgU0uLip2qVlgdbuk7JPaC+h3riN6K7UVy14Gp8B6nZ4sixtdCxPd7bRxuLYdCGDiGNh p/YKXKYJo/nOzDb7TTKASrmqkKLDoJnS4gUnsoL7AU08hssnUMTeezHlCE1DmOVbDtX1 s+VKscfvOQlQ3y8Cr/Q/i8OLjC0YfNhb83k2ndhf/iFpJQye7mEzXypibG8asHfCFg6K KKHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=IKasMraTRyvHWJ8U7oqEhFKH4QCq8fy89khGsA2KoEA=; b=Ooc4CkMXonMYH9V0F8ELNksjQFeG7/wbzvAVdFy8dDBjt4Wsc//O/8ju2D2khD89Et 1rq/boqVlAxXViOlfXz1Fi1Duage+k9Rh60TdYz+AfELueqeJ7yaz5tsNxgefiOH883R zwUl/dRZ81BW16q52bVkxNOf3Bx3gI+Ofq3yM9Ko3qRkEXQ1/Ma3RK43qgtwzn0xJ9AB /eBoXPXIPHjwwdicueTKOetinkmywsh8p+8S/BpFQzkisgb26vGoVCoFf1XAchiwTVq0 ZZNkkSEBtpA9RalZPq67OGS7PVnI5vScR18777hstl4ev3PFcDy9GdVmwHmjKSgmCQs/ QIxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/62HfgqOSf85sOZzfuiVkfmCfuyXhEabmdTDcDk2Vo5xUiGrNui xwFVYsu+NdaR/e0pytQ=
X-Received: by with SMTP id e17mr405178otc.42.1493224055173; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id j51sm291042otc.47.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Sarah Banks <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14E304)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:27:33 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Robert Sparks <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:27:41 -0000

Hi Robert,
    Thank you for your review; we appreciate your time and comments, and the authors will review in due course. 


> On Apr 26, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Robert Sparks <> wrote:
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <>.
> Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 2017-04-26
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-02
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> Summary: Essentially Ready for publication as an Informational RFC,
> but with some minor issues to address before publication
> This document is (with exceptions noted below) straightforward and
> easy to follow
> Minor Issues:
> Section 8 is very confusing - I suspect it has been made so by
> removing things that were in it earlier. Right now it claims to
> provide additional tests, but the only content is about testing things
> with firewalls, along with a statement that this document is only
> targeting network devices that do not have a firewall function. I
> think you can keep most of the text here (except the statement that
> you aren't talking about things with firewalls) and remove the
> confusion by changing the section heading to something like "Tests in
> the presence of a firewall function".
> It's unclear how to apply the formula in Section 10.2.1 to the results
> that come out of, say, Section 7.3.2, where you are reporting a
> (minimum, median, maximum) tuple. Some discussion about the
> applicability of the tests where you recommend against reporting a
> single number to the methods in this section would help. It would also
> help to point out that the Xpd result can be go negative (it will go
> negative for things that become smaller as the number of flows
> increase, and positive for things that get bigger). If I read this
> correctly, if throughput (for example) goes to 0 as n increases, Xpd
> will go to -100%. Similary if latency doubles as n increases, Xpd will
> go to +100% (and will go to +200% if latency triples).
> Nits:
> There are several places where you point to Section 6 where I think
> you meant to point to Section 7. See the Procedure: line in 10.2.1 for
> an example. Also make sure 9 is correct where you say "Sections 6
> through 9" in section 12.
> Please double-check that you meant "larger MTU" in the last paragraph
> of 5.1. It might be correct, but I find the paragraph confusing.
> In 8.1 you meant to point to 5.2, not 5.3
> Please try to simplify this sentence: 
>  "The duration of each trial SHOULD be at least 60 seconds to reduce
> the potential gain of a DNS64 server, which is able to exhibit higher
> performance by storing the requests and thus utilizing also the
> timeout time for answering them."
> (Style comment - please feel free to ignore): Consider deleting "as
> well" everywhere it occurs in the document - most of the places it is
> used, the sentence works just as well, and sometimes better, without
> it.
> Typos:
> end of section 5.1.1: Appendix A1 should be Appendix A
> please remove the comma in the first sentence of the second paragraph
> of section 5.2
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list