Re: [bmwg] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13
Carsten Rossenhoevel <cross@eantc.de> Wed, 02 February 2022 08:10 UTC
Return-Path: <cross@eantc.de>
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 BA4EF3A2873; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:10:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.612
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 j5_rSiC-ItuE; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from obelix.eantc.de (mailgw.eantc.com [89.27.172.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E04B3A2879; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 00:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.31.5.6] by obelix.eantc.de with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <cross@eantc.de>) id 1nFAim-0000MI-7L; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 09:10:32 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------XHNcwMfpF4tzo1IATGQisZjv"
Message-ID: <1ea89017-e833-7240-c6a3-9d08d68603ff@eantc.de>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 09:10:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1
To: Matt Joras <matt.joras@gmail.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
References: <164373365337.23647.13599772226951368639@ietfa.amsl.com> <ddf11891-8034-f28f-32d6-648ea2bf917f@eantc.de> <CADdTf+hwZefRf9A3rEx94rH_bReKcgMoGMySCWN_dvn08_9-Dg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Carsten Rossenhoevel <cross@eantc.de>
In-Reply-To: <CADdTf+hwZefRf9A3rEx94rH_bReKcgMoGMySCWN_dvn08_9-Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/r6tFif4o1gzMjf-8HRnq0Yrjh5k>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13
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, 02 Feb 2022 08:10:45 -0000
Hi Matt, Toerless, Thank you both for your guidance. We will proceed as suggested. Best regards, Carsten Am 02.02.2022 um 08:32 schrieb Matt Joras: > Hi Carsten, > > I don't have a good answer unfortunately. In my opinion the mentions > of QUIC and HTTP/3 don't add a lot, and feel a bit bolted on so to > speak. This is of course understandable given the relatively recent > standardization of QUIC itself and the lack of testing experience with > it and the numerous implementations. > > If it were me I would perhaps instead make a note of QUIC as a > potential transport protocol for HTTP, and acknowledge that the > document will not attempt to enumerate specific testing procedures for > it. The current text probably would not lead to useful results for > QUIC performance testing relative to TCP. > > That's my two cents anyway. > > Matt Joras > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022, 11:14 PM Carsten Rossenhoevel <cross@eantc.de> wrote: > > Dear Matt, > > Thank you for your review! > > We added QUIC to the draft during one of the BMWG sessions based on > suggestions from the attendees. The authors are a bit unsure how > to fix > the draft that's up for approval so that it would be precise and > fully > compliant with QUIC environments. > > Do you have any specific suggestions how to correct the text, keeping > QUIC in scope? > > Alternatively, we could remove QUIC references and take it out of > scope > and cover it in a future amendment. Not the best solution, but after > more than three years of drafting with so many contributors, we would > like to avoid opening a new discussion area that would likely > delay the > work by another year. > > Best regards, Carsten > > > Am 2/1/2022 um 5:40 PM schrieb Matt Joras via Datatracker: > > Reviewer: Matt Joras > > 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 wait for direction from your > > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13 > > Reviewer: Matt Joras > > Review Date: 2022-01-31 > > IETF LC End Date: 2021-12-29 > > IESG Telechat date: 2022-02-03 > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > Section 4.3.1.1 > > This section details TCP stack attributes in great detail. However, > > subsequently HTTP/3 and QUIC are both mentioned in 4.3.1.3.. > QUIC is in need of > > tuning just as much as TCP, if not more. > > > > " HTTP/3 emulated browser uses QUIC ([RFC9000]) as transport > protocol." should > > be reworded, and I'm not exactly sure what it is trying to convey. > > > > "Depending on test scenarios and selected HTTP version, HTTP > header compression > > MAY be set to enable or disable." should probably read " be > enabled or > > disabled." > > > > Similarly in sections 7, there is a lot of specific mention of > TCP connections, > > TCP RSTs, FINs, etc. and continued mentioning of HTTP. Since > QUIC is a > > significant carrier of HTTP traffic it seems these sections > should not be so > > specific to TCP. Especially since it seems as though for these > kinds of devices > > their limits may very well be different for UDP or TCP flows. > > > > > -- > Carsten Rossenhövel > Managing Director, EANTC AG (European Advanced Networking Test Center) > Salzufer 14, 10587 Berlin, Germany > office +49.30.3180595-21, fax +49.30.3180595-10, mobile > +49.177.2505721 > cross@eantc.de, https://www.eantc.de > > Place of Business/Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Germany > Chairman/Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Herbert Almus > Managing Directors/Vorstand: Carsten Rossenhövel, Gabriele Schrenk > Registered: HRB 73694, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Berlin, Germany > EU VAT No: DE812824025 >
- [bmwg] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-bmwg-… Matt Joras via Datatracker
- Re: [bmwg] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-b… Carsten Rossenhoevel
- Re: [bmwg] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-b… Matt Joras
- Re: [bmwg] [Last-Call] Genart telechat review of … Toerless Eckert
- Re: [bmwg] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-b… Carsten Rossenhoevel
- Re: [bmwg] [Last-Call] Genart telechat review of … Toerless Eckert
- Re: [bmwg] [Last-Call] Genart telechat review of … Lars Eggert