Re: [bmwg] WGLC on IPv6 Benchmarking

[Al Morton <acmorton at att.com>]

At 10:35 PM 7/14/2007, Al Morton wrote:
> A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on
>
> "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology"
> <draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-02.txt>

...closes today.

Just a few, mostly editorial suggestions,
Al
(as a participant)

S 1, 3rd para.
To be consistent, include the RFC number for
"Benchmarking Terminology for ..." [6] in the text.
All the other RFCs in this section are referred to by number,
and RFC 1242 should not be left out.

S 5.1, 3rd para,
   "The frame sizes listed for IPv6 include the extension headers used in
   testing (see section 4.3). "
should be 5.3

S 5.2.1 1st para

   "IANA reserved the IPv6 address block xxxxx/48 for use with IPv6
   benchmark testing.  These addresses MUST be assumed to be not
   routable on the Internet and MUST not be used as Internet source or
   destination addresses.

   Note to IANA: Replace "xxxxx" with assigned prefix."

I suggest that it's more efficient to ask the IANA folks to edit one
section, the IANA section (8), and just make a reference to it here.

possible text:
   IANA has reserved an IPv6 address block for use with IPv6
   benchmark testing (see section 8).  It MAY be assumed that
   addresses in this block are not globally routable and they
   MUST NOT be used as Internet source or destination addresses.

   <note deleted>
and
5.2.2.  Test Traffic Protocol Addresses

   The IPv6 source and destination addresses for the test streams SHOULD
   belong to the IPv6 range assigned by IANA as defined in section 8.

S 7
under Extension Header specific conditions, the text should reference
section 5.3 not 4.3.


S 7.4  Back-to-Back Frames.

I don't think we should have an objective for a test we've decided not to
recommend, so suggest deleting the Objective: lines.




_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg