Re: [bmwg] AD Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 11:26 AM MORTON JR., AL <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Warren,
>
> you wrote:
>
> ... Chairs / Al: The document state is listed as: "Doc Shepherd Follow-up
> Underway" - I'm assuming that this is from:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/EonLD10nf0xQfWzHt0YT0QDK6lU
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/EonLD10nf0xQfWzHt0YT0QDK6lU__;!!BhdT!wptYbr7_rABXnlwTDr-uojLzp5chs82rns2i3R4L0xCYckS-_5CYI7dLYf3U$>
> - can you please confirm (LOUDLY) that this is OK now and I'll kick off LC.
>

Thank you, IETF LC requested / started.

W



>
>
> Done,
>
> Al
>
>
>
> *From:* bmwg <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Warren Kumari
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2021 10:37 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [bmwg] AD Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance
>
>
>
> Hi there all,
>
>
>
> I'd like to apologize to the authors and WG for how long it has taken me
> to post this review; I read the document a while back, but forgot to post
> it :-(
>
>
>
> I only had a few editorial / readability suggestions -- they are
> sufficiently minor (and I'm embarrassed by how long my review took!) that
> I'll kick off LC without asking for a new version -- authors, please
> consider them if you post a new version addressing LC comments, or to
> address IESG Eval comments.
>
>
>
> Chairs / Al: The document state is listed as: "Doc Shepherd Follow-up
> Underway" - I'm assuming that this is from:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/EonLD10nf0xQfWzHt0YT0QDK6lU
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/EonLD10nf0xQfWzHt0YT0QDK6lU__;!!BhdT!wptYbr7_rABXnlwTDr-uojLzp5chs82rns2i3R4L0xCYckS-_5CYI7dLYf3U$>
> - can you please confirm (LOUDLY) that this is OK now and I'll kick off LC.
>
>
>
>
>
> W
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.  Introduction
>
>
>
>    18 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
>
>    terminology for firewalls initially ([RFC3511]).  The requirements
>
>    for network security element performance and effectiveness have
>
>    increased tremendously since then.  Security function implementations
>
> [O] 18 years have passed since IETF recommended test methodology and
>
>    terminology for firewalls initially ([RFC3511]).  The requirements
>
>    for network security element performance and effectiveness have
>
>    increased tremendously since then.
>
> [P] In the eighteen years since [RFC3511] was published, recommending test methodology and terminology for firewalls, requirements and expectations for network security elements has increased tremendously.
>
>    have evolved to more advanced areas and have diversified into
>
>    intrusion detection and prevention, threat management, analysis of
>
>    encrypted traffic, etc.  In an industry of growing importance, well-
>
>    defined, and reproducible key performance indicators (KPIs) are
>
>    increasingly needed as they enable fair and reasonable comparison of
>
> [O] as they enable
>
> [P] to enable
>
>    network security functions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Perhaps they really do strive for incomprehensibility in their specs.
> After all, when the liturgy was in Latin, the laity knew their place.
> -- Michael Padlipsky
>


-- 
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra