RE: [bmwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-03.txt

["Chip Popoviciu \(cpopovic\)" <cpopovic at cisco.com>]

In my opinion the methodology is well defined and clear. The notes
simply clarify aspects of the methodology and put things in context for
non-specialists who still use BMWG documents for reference. If this
commentary is diminishing the value of the document in the context of
the BMWG charter, we remove it and leave only the point about the 49
bytes option for the minimum size.

Thank you for your feedback!

Best Regards,
Chip


-----Original Message-----
From: David Newman [mailto:dnewman at networktest.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:56 PM
To: bmwg at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-03.txt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9/4/07 1:29 PM, Chip Popoviciu (cpopovic) wrote:
> Your perspective on the methodology makes sense, indeed it should be 
> defined without assumptions of the scope for which it will be used. In

> this sense there is no disagreement. The idea of the note was to put 
> things in context for the reader who might just take the 
> recommendations as they are and not relate them to his true needs. If 
> the reader is someone testing the maximum switch fabric performance or

> wants to evaluate a limit case, that reader most likely knows what the

> data means and what is its use. On the other hand, we might have 
> readers who, without understanding the context, would take the 
> recommendation ad literam.
> 
> Do you see value in providing some context to the limit case? I still 
> think of the comments made by Curtis (which I think are realistic):
> 
> "The ISPs don't care what BMWG specifies.  They will provide their own

> number if they disagree.  The enterprise market does not have that 
> luxury and may also be more prone to pay attention to meaningless 
> benchmark figures that marketeers waive around if theirs is better."
> 
> The idea is not to discourage the use of that frame size but rather to

> encourage proper interpretation of the results. The note might have 
> been poorly worded but that is what it intended to do. Either way, 
> your proposal to mention the 49 bytes option should be added.

This is a methodology for stimulating a DUT/SUT and measuring the
effects of that stimulation.

It is not a methodology for analyzing those effects based on some
predetermined notion of what the user's "true needs" may be, nor is it a
guide to "proper interpretation."[1]

Those concepts both have many definitions, each in the eyes of their
beholders.

We don't know, can't know, and shouldn't know how different users will
interpret results. Those are subjective judgments, and far out of scope
here IMO.

dn

[1] In my day job I receive many generous offers to define true needs
and proper interpretations, usually from persons with "marketing" in
their titles.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFG3cZHyPxGVjntI4IRApJ8AKCkJM3BmqLLMLS0yLKfG5ecKSjf6gCglr0t
QkQV6yo0M4q9AzUhz8qtCj0=
=3LAK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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