[bmwg] Preliminary AD review of draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Hi there authors and WG,

Firstly, massive apologies for how long this (preliminary) review has
taken; I usually get these done much more quickly, but travel (ICANN, then
IETF) got in the way, and then I wanted to discuss this with the rest of
the IESG.

There is some fairly strong pushback on amount of the use of "we" - some
examples:
First, we discuss why using pseudorandom port numbers with stateful NATxy
gateways is a hard problem.
Then we recommend a solution.
We follow the same approach: first, we use a single source and destination
IP address pair, and then we explain how to use multiple IP addresses.
We define the most important elements of our proposed benchmarking system
as follows. […]

This makes the document sound much more like an academic paper than a WG
consensus document. While this will require a fairly large number of
changes (there are ~56 occurrences of 'we'), I don't think that it will
actually be that hard to fix — in many cases it is simply s/We/This
document/.

While I'm sure it is annoying to have to make these sort of editorial
changes, I figure that it's better to let you know now, instead of waiting
until it reached IESG eval, and then end up with a bunch of DISCUSS ballots…

W