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

From: "Mike Hamilton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:20:06 -0500

Al and BMWG,
I support this going forward.  Quick comments below.

Best,
Mike

I-D Title(s): MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology
Filename(s): draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt
Reviewer Name: Mike Hamilton
Date: 10/21/2008

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?

   * 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?

>> Everything looks good here

   * 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.

>> Nope

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

>> Nope

Technical Content:  (Accuracy, Completeness of coverage)

   Are definitions accurate? Is the terminology offered relevant?

>> 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.

>> No

   Does the solution adequately address IPv6?

>> N/A

   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

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.)

>> Yes

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

>> N/A
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg