Re: [bmwg] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8239 (6763)

[Lucien <[e-mail]>]

Iteration 1 and 2 are correct in the original text as well.


On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 00:37 Leonard Yu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I was assuming the texts describing Iteration 1 & 2 were incorrect. But
> from the drawing below, I can see it is the text describing iteration 1 and
> 2 are incorrect.
>
>
>
> I will make a new errara report for to correct the texts for iteration 1 &2
>
> [image: Text, letter Description automatically generated]
>
>
>
> *From: *Lucien <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 20.56
> *To: *MORTON JR., AL <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Jacob Rapp <[e-mail]>, RFC Errata System <
> [e-mail]>, Sarah B <[e-mail]>, Warren Kumari
> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Leonard Yu <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8239 (6763)
>
> Here is a picture illustrating it, sorry my ascii skills for drawing are
> not there yet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:55 MORTON JR., AL <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your quick reply, Lucien!
>
> Al
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lucien <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 30, 2021 2:29 PM
> *To:* RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Jacob Rapp <[e-mail]>; Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; MORTON JR., AL <[e-mail]>; Sarah B <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8239 (6763)
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This errata is incorrect. The original text is correct.
>
>
>
> Lucien
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 6:47 AM RFC Errata System <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8239,
> "Data Center Benchmarking Methodology".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6763
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6763__;!!BhdT!wScd1KMc51KUWqw0VGpG0Koz6W11ctc3VWC0cf5ClMcedcAYPseHP0RwShhp$>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Leonard Yu <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: 3.2
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> Last iteration: Ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress
> port 2, ingress port 3 sending line rate to egress port 4, etc.
> Ingress port N-1 and port N will oversubscribe, at 1% of line
> rate, egress port N-3 and port N-2, respectively. Measure the
> buffer size value by multiplying the number of extra frames
> sent by the frame size for each egress port.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Last iteration: Ingress port 1 sending line rate to egress
> port 2, ingress port 3 sending line rate to egress port 4, etc.
> Ingress port N-1 and port N will oversubscribe, at 1% of line
> rate, egress port N-4 and port N-3, respectively. Measure the
> buffer size value by multiplying the number of extra frames
> sent by the frame size for each egress port.
>
> Notes
> -----
> If
> #1, 1->2, 3->4, 5->6, 7->8, ... and N-1->2, N->3
> #2, 1->2, 3->4, 5->6, 7->8, ... and N-1->4, N->5
>
> Then
> #last, 1->2, 3->4, 5->6, 7->8, ... and N-1->N-4, N->N-3
>
> Otherwise, the general equation won't satisfy #1 and #2
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8239 (draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-18)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Data Center Benchmarking Methodology
> Publication Date    : August 2017
> Author(s)           : L. Avramov, J. Rapp
> Category            : INFORMATIONAL
> Source              : Benchmarking Methodology
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
>