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

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 15:44:40 -0500

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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Bill Cerveny
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 3:04 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 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" <[email-masked]>
> 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 [email-masked].
> >
> > 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
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg