[bmwg] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 30 June 2021 14:10 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7183A1DCD; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 07:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest@ietf.org, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, sbanks@encrypted.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.33.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <162506222248.14553.11344463796950748069@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 07:10:22 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/t9tWCT7jlsS32sXvGeF0DLKWAzs>
Subject: [bmwg] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 30 Jun 2021 14:10:23 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Robert Sparks for the SECDIR review. ** Section 3.* and Section 4.* Are there recommended values for X, N, or F? If this document is intended to help others benchmark EVPNs, it would useful to describe how to calculate the number of times to run the test or how many MACs to generate to get useful results. ** Section 3 and 4. If all the metrics use Topology 1, and this is the only topology provided in the document, why repeat it each time in the description of each metric? ** Section 7. Thanks for adding the text “Security features mentioned in the RFC 7432 will affect the test results” in response to the SECDIR review. Is it possible to clarify this text? Which RFC7432 security mechanisms are assumed to be in Topology 1? Could a summary cross-walk of the RFC7432 reference security mechanisms against their impact on the metrics be easily documented? ** idnits returns: == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == Missing Reference: 'RFC7632' is mentioned on line 111, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC2544' is defined on line 1248, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2899' is defined on line 1253, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC7623' is defined on line 1268, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Editorial nits: -- Whole document. Editorial. Choose either “VLAN” or “vlan” and use it consistently in the document. -- Section 2. Typo. s/support,Interior/support, Interior/ -- Section 2. Typo. s/parameters.It/parameters. It/ -- Section 3.*. Typo in a few places. s/standrard/standard/g -- Section 4.11. Typo s/process,CPU/process, CPU/
- [bmwg] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker