[bmwg] Review of draft-vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-01

WB Lee <leewb@etri.re.kr> Mon, 22 April 2019 07:08 UTC

Return-Path: <leewb@etri.re.kr>
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 89E301200F4 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 00:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 qbb-4WYSMvWG for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 00:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mscreen.etri.re.kr (mscreen.etri.re.kr [129.254.9.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBFFD120059 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 00:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown (HELO smtpeg.etri.re.kr) (129.254.27.142) by 129.254.9.16 with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2019 16:07:45 +0900
X-Original-SENDERIP: 129.254.27.142
X-Original-MAILFROM: leewb@etri.re.kr
X-Original-RCPTTO: bmwg@ietf.org
Received: from SMTP4.etri.info (129.254.28.74) by SMTPEG2.etri.info (129.254.27.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 16:07:48 +0900
Received: from leewbPC (129.254.190.240) by SMTP4.etri.info (129.254.28.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 16:07:42 +0900
From: WB Lee <leewb@etri.re.kr>
To: <bmwg@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 16:07:41 +0900
Message-ID: <003801d4f8da$13dfa590$3b9ef0b0$@etri.re.kr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdT42Rprl8zvn2/LSy6Yir6tjGsrIA==
Content-Language: ko
X-Originating-IP: [129.254.190.240]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/zOTPzwjRgQy5ZzldNTg2ZBn7r1k>
Subject: [bmwg] Review of draft-vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-01
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: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:08:01 -0000

Hi all,

Here are comments on a draft-vpolak-mkonstan-bmwg-mlrsearch-01. 

In my view, this draft is very informative to evaluate packet throughput
performance in the NFV environment. However, we need to reduce the test
duration time in PNF (Whenever I perform the 2544 test, I felt that.). This
draft states that "a common way to evaluate NFV packet throughput
performance". Can we apply MLRsearch to PNF and NFV both?

In 3, caveats section, would you provide the example of drastic changes in
behavior?

Please, add MRR to Terminology section.
Previous version, there were a,b,c,d. but, there is no a,b,c,d.. in 01
version. Please, make sure that. 
(e.g. /by jumping to 1.g/ 1.c/ 1.d/ )

Best,
Wangbong Lee