[bmwg] Comments for draft-vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch-02

Timothy Carlin <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu> Fri, 08 November 2019 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu>
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 59A59120814 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 05:58:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iol.unh.edu
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 3kkUsKXhrhLs for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 05:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC3BC12003F for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 05:58:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id f2so7108463wrs.11 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 05:58:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=RtSIL61YMNY5iRHjCj1BP+1L0aYJU48ppWERiHuVn4A=; b=U10FzZ5sm5rPLZLRrTysnku103T6SIAopPKSg7fMw2XMDGniv26Jdp53sg3kCZZk7L D79tQievKjxTOnmVi/r6bo/GZcnaiJ0iHfUSyL6LIE48JF7C+eK2dsyV6mQLu06g5e2L mCl2ucViaIZr84rhX/4a94IwXhruh57igBetg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=RtSIL61YMNY5iRHjCj1BP+1L0aYJU48ppWERiHuVn4A=; b=Yw5WBoJSf8kkUp6AhsEx/Rp7qbvCPseHeyno25gC/Hv1Kvm0XFp5gAZA3kzY3hz5IG lOLvFWCuT+hQ7PFwM8LPfHQw0DpCZnSag/xl6sGg3xO80fO9kWGAnAPMMtpQ0jvxWqdL ZP68MQtwRueuxJ6XVR42sX8AeOtmb/P8AEHlrWuZNYuVdkrxGNyt1dz90L4/qXiQffFz Zbg2vd7IntTFb4KS10eC1RUjVAet4/9tYkdnppytlRT0QJ2X9ZByq50W1OgGfewBBkj9 J1omWwXHlxBITSi0q0kNiRo0jGsA2aGPHn07fe7RqqwTQr1LzY2v0rnGmUGGTp0194Ul VAWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXCrvU3JA+jPMyd8RXzUKWO41azzNcNDztjOOxpyk8BJ/mgMSn6 g/9TZrSWYnQBrsccEl0nF2LP7ehhyLTsyJ2eb1nVkb1wHgs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy/DKqMEnYyk1VDxEX8VYoCRFGh7HG8CTnJDRm9r5apejgENGdKNj17SrQxya3EQVzjJ1S3Dvf/Ll+gyQcFjhs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:12c4:: with SMTP id l4mr8210539wrx.110.1573221500793; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 05:58:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Timothy Carlin <tjcarlin@iol.unh.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:57:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAB-aFv8m=a-vKy1oBou-bAKiHBaQ_nAnsFKb3TiZQv4okhpmew@mail.gmail.com>
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b55ca90596d62c88"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/zNewq9av9AkQzfZ2deiIuNOWg-E>
Subject: [bmwg] Comments for draft-vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch-02
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:58:27 -0000

Hi bmwg,

I have read draft-vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch-02.  Overall I think it is well
written.  Admittedly, I did not take a deep dive into the functions and
math.  I noticed that many of the terms defined in Section 3 seem to be
applicable beyond PLRsearch to all kinds of throughput and loss testing.
Would other drafts benefit from referencing some of these terms from a
dedicated terms draft?  I didn't notice this already covered by any of the
existing Terminology RFCs, but my apologies if I missed it.

Unfortunately, I won't be attending IETF 106, but I'm happy to join the
discussion on this and other drafts on the mailer.

Best Regards,
Tim Carlin