Subject: [bmwg] WGLC: Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-05.txt

From: Arun Gandhi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:06:54 -0500

Last Call Review Template
                =========================

I-D Title(s) : Benchmarking Terminology for Protection Performance
Filename(s)  : draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-05.txt
Reviewer Name: Arun Gandhi
Date         : 01/24/2009

Please organize your comments in the following categories below.

Review Summary:
===============
This is significantly useful and good work.

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, the scope of the work is clearly defined.

* 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?

  The working set of supporting terminology is quite clearly cited 
  and correct. 

* 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?

  Not Applicable.

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

  Not Applicable.

* 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.

* 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?

  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.

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.

  Not Applicable.

* 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.)

  I do think so.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of Al Morton
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 3:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [bmwg] WGLC: bmwg-protection-term-05 and meth-04
> 
> BMWG:
> 
> A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Drafts on
> 
> Sub-IP Layer Protection Mechanism Performance Benchmarking 
> draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-05.txt
> draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-04.txt
> 
> will be open from 2 through 30 January, 2009.
> Early comments are welcome.
> 
> This is the "first" WGLC on these drafts.
> 
> 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 these Internet-Drafts 
> should be given to the Area Directors and IESG for consideration and 
> publication as Informational RFCs.  Send your comments to this list or 
> [email-masked].
> 
> URLs for these Internet-Drafts:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-05.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-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