[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-07

Jana Iyengar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 24 May 2021 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214AE3A304B; Mon, 24 May 2021 10:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jana Iyengar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Cc: bmwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.30.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <162187790509.16740.4321707014094930863@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 10:38:25 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/FnBafgQzcYesSGERUXq6Gs7xHYg>
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-07
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 17:38:25 -0000

Reviewer: Jana Iyengar
Review result: Ready with Issues

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

The document seems fine overall. There are some minor grammar and consistency
things, but I expect that the RFC-editors will handle those.

The one thing that stuck out to me is the following: It helps in documents such
as this to be more precise about exactly what a measurement tool or tester
should consider success or failure. One piece of text where this precision
should be improved is in the Soak Test (both 3.12 and 4.11):
  "The CPU spike is determined as the CPU usage which shoots at 40 to 50
  percent of the average usage.
    The average value vary from device to device.  Memory leak is determined
   by increase usage of the memory for EVPN process.  The expectation is
   under steady state the memory usage for EVPN process should not
Perhaps something like the following for defining CPU spikes might be helpful:
"A CPU spike is defined as a sudden increase and subsequent decrease in usage
from average usage to about 150% of average usage." Similarly, memory leak is
very weakly defined. Do you mean _any increase_ in memory usage, or is there a
threshold that you want to propose? Do you mean consistent increase over time?
Can you define a leak more precisely in the context of your test?