[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00

Last Call Review Template


I-D Title(s): MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology
Filename(s): draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt
Reviewer Name: Bill Cerveny
Date: Oct. 24, 2008


Please organize your comments in the following categories below.


Review Summary:


Overall:


   * Does/Do the draft(s) provide clear identification of the
     scope of work? E.g., is the class of device, system, or
     service being characterized clearly articulated.

Yes


   * If a terminology memo, are the measurement areas clearly
     defined or otherwise cited?  Is the working set of
     supporting terminology sufficient and correct?  To your
     knowledge, are the areas of the memo that may conflict
     with other bodies of work? Are there any measurements or
     terminology that are superfluous?  Are any missing?

N/A

   * If a methodology memo, does the methodology AND its
     corresponding terminology adequately define a benchmarking
     solution for its application area? Do the methodologies present
     sufficient detail for the experimental control of the benchmarks?

Yes

   * If neither a terminology or methodology, does the offered
     memo offer complementary information important to the use
     or application of the related benchmarking solution?



   * Do you feel there are undocumented limitations or caveats to
     the benchmarking solution being proposed?  If so, please
     describe.

No

   * Does the memo attempt to define acceptance criteria for
     any of the benchmark areas?

No

Technical Content:  (Accuracy, Completeness of coverage)


   Are definitions accurate? Is the terminology offered relevant?

Yes and yes

   To your knowledge, are there technical areas that are erroneous?
   Are there questionable technical areas that need to be re-examined
   or otherwise scrutinized.

Letter references to parts of the test layout are sometimes unclear, in
my opinion.

   Does the solution adequately address IPv6?

Not applicable

   Do you feel the memo(s) being offered are technically mature enough
   for advancement to informational RFC?

Yes


Clarity and Utility:


  If you had a need, would you utilize the benchmarking solutions
  advocated by this and its related memos?  If not, why?

Yes. They seem reasonable.


Conformance to BMWG principles: (see BMWG charter)
http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/html.charters/bmwg-charter.html



  Do you have confidence that the benchmarks, as explicitly
  defined, will yield consistent results if repeated on the
  same device (DUT/SUT), multiple times for a given test condition.
  If not, cite benchmark(s) and issue(s).

Yes


  Do you have confidence that the benchmarks, if executed for a
  given test condition, utilizing the documented methodology
  on multiple test infrastructure (e.g., test equipment), would
  yield correct and consistent results on the same DUT/SUT?
  (Said differently, are the benchmark's methodology written
  with enough exacting detail, that benchmark implementation
  differences do not yield a difference in the measured quantities?)
  If not, cite benchmark(s) and issue(s).

Yes

  Do you feel that the benchmarks form a basis of comparison between
  implementations of quantity being characterized? (I.e., are the
  benchmarks suitable for comparing solutions from different vendors.)

Yes

  If not, cite benchmarks and issues.



  For those benchmarks cited above, do you feel that the benchmarks,
  as specified, have universal applicability for the given
  behavior being characterized?  (i.e., benchmarks might not form
  a basis for cross-vendor comparison, can be used universally
  in a different role.)




Editorial Comments:
(includes any deficiencies noted w.r.t. I-D Nits, spelling, & grammar)

General:
- ?test tool? frequently referenced as ?testool?.  ?Test tool? is
correct, in my opinion (although I?m also wondering if something else
such as ?tester? may be even more correct).

- Use of ?etc? should be avoided, in my  opinion, especially where text
says ?for example, ??

- Terms test procedure and test setup should not be capitalized in
normal text.

Abstract: 
- s/The purpose of this draft is to describe/This document describes/

- s/devices. The scope of this benchmarking will be limited/devices,
limited/

4.1.2 Label Distribution Support

- S/includes when the label/including when the label/

- S/The most commonly used protocol is/The most commonly used protocols
are/

- Define acronyms RSVP-TE, MP-BGP and FEC on first usage

- S/This draft/This document/

4.1.3 Frame Sizes

- S/For better reference, the/The/

- Move ?for IPv4? between ?sizes? and ?are?

- Define acronym IMIX and provide reference to its definition.

4.1.4 TTL or Hop Count

- Define acronym TTL

- Don?t capitalize hop count in text

4.1.5 Trial Duration

- S/The longer trial time for when/When/

- S/used for verifying/used, verify/

4.1.5.1 Traffic Verification

- S/In all cases the sent/In all cases, sent/

- S/The MPLS header presence/MPLS header presence/

- S/In general, many/Many/

- S/but that is considered/but this is/

5. Reporting Format

For table heading, ?Unit? should be replaced with ?Unit or example?

Remove ?etc? in table

6. MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking tests (capitalize ?tests? in title)

- S/MPLS is altogether a/MPLS is a/

- S/MPLS packet is likely to contain more than one MPLS headers/MPLS
packets are likely to contain more than one MPLS header/

- S/Such characteristics desire/Such characteristics/

- S/but not limited to/but is not limited to/

- S/It is recommended that a/A/

- Should what is meant by ?regular traffic? be elaborated on?

6.2 Latency Measurement

- Is the description directly beneath title actually part of the
procedure?

- ?The forwarding delay measurement requires the accurate propagation ?"
Should "accurate propagation" be ?accurate one-way propagation??




On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:13:14 -0400, "Al Morton" <acmorton at att.com> said:
> BMWG:
> 
> A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on
> 
> "MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology"
> draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt
> 
> will be open from 24 September through October 24, 2008.
> 
> This is the "first" WGLC on the draft.  It was developed as
> draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth-04.txt and adopted as a WG draft.
> 
> As with all initial WGLCs, volunteers are needed to complete
> the Last Call Review Template, available here:
> http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/LastCallTemplate.txt
> 
> Use of the template and bmwg's last call process can be found here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg00846.html
> 
> Please weigh-in on whether or not you feel that this Internet-Draft
> should be given to the Area Directors and IESG for consideration in
> publishing the Draft as an Informational RFC.  Send your comments
> to this list or acmorton at att.com.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00
> (which replaced
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth-04.txt )
> 
> Al
> bmwg chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg