[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00
Hi Bill,
Thank you so much for carefully reviewing the draft during the WGLC.
This is quite helpful. The upcoming -01 draft incorporates your
feedback.
Missed only this one comment -
> 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/
This suggested removing the only verb in the sentence - Such
characteristics desire further granularity in MPLS forwarding
benchmarking... Hence, didn't include it. Let me know if you meant to
suggest something more.
Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 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).
Done. "test tool" is now used consistently.
> - Use of "etc" should be avoided, in my opinion, especially where
text
> says "for example, ..."
We could not find such a reference for the latter case.
> - Terms test procedure and test setup should not be capitalized in
> normal text.
Fixed.
> 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/
Fixed.
> 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/
Fixed.
> 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.
Fixed.
> 4.1.4 TTL or Hop Count
>
> - Define acronym TTL
>
> - Don't capitalize hop count in text
Fixed.
Also, I replaced Hop Count with Hop Limit, so as to be compliant with
IPv6 spec [rfc2460], which uses it capitalized.
> 4.1.5 Trial Duration
>
> - S/The longer trial time for when/When/
>
> - S/used for verifying/used, verify/
Fixed. Good catch.
> 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/
Fixed.
The 2nd para is further updated with additional text as well.
> 5. Reporting Format
>
> For table heading, "Unit" should be replaced with "Unit or example"
>
> Remove "etc" in table
Fixed.
> 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?
All fixed.
> 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"?
Indeed. Fixed.
Cheers,
Rajiv
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bmwg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Bill Cerveny
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 3:04 PM
> To: bmwg at ietf.org
> Cc: bmwg at wjcerveny.com
> Subject: 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
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg