Subject: Re: [bmwg] WGLC: Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-04.txt

From: Mohan Nanduri <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:23:10 -0500

I-D Title(s): Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS Protection Mechanisms
Filename(s): draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-04.txt
Reviewer Name: Mohan Nanduri
Date: Jan 16, 2009

Please organize your comments in the following categories below.

Review Summary:

Coming from a Service Provider world, this work is needed to establish a
common
methodology across different platforms. I think this is important work and a
I support this draft.

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, It does define the scope of work clearly.

   * 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?

Yes, it provides sufficient details and different mechanisms to benchmark.

   * 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.

   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.

-Mohan

-----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<http://home.comcast.net/%7Eacmacm/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
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: "Andrey Kiselev (ankisele)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:48:34 -0500

I-D Title(s): Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS Protection Mechanisms 
Filename(s): draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-04.txt
Reviewer Name: Andrey Kiselev
Date: Jan 20, 2009

Review Summary:

This draft provides extensive coverage on protection methodology area.
It deserves to be published as informational RFC.

Overall:

 Yes, It does.

N/A - this is methodology memo

Yes, benchmarking solution is adequately defined in this methodology and
the corresponding terminology drafts.

N/A

No, I don't

No, it does not.

Definitions are accurate and terminology is relevant

Not to my knowledge.

N/A

Yes, I do.

Clarity and Utility:

Yes, I would (and actually I do)

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

Yes.

Yes, I do.

Yes.

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

Page 3, last line: Within 
   the context of MPLS protection mechanisms, failures that arise due 
   to Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG) [MPLS-FRR-EXT] can be considered 
   as  correlations  failures  or.  <------------- Remove "or" or add
missing definition.
 
Thanks,
 
Andrey

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Mohan Nanduri
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 10:23 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Al Morton
Subject: Re: [bmwg] WGLC: Review of
draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-04.txt

Review Summary:

Coming from a Service Provider world, this work is needed to establish a
common 
methodology across different platforms. I think this is important work
and a I support this draft.

Overall:

Yes, it provides sufficient details and different mechanisms to
benchmark.

No.

No.

Yes.

No.

N/A

Yes.

Clarity and Utility:

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

-Mohan

-----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:

http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/LastCallTemplate.txt
<http://home.comcast.net/%7Eacmacm/BMWG/LastCallTemplate.txt> 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-05.t
xt

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-04.t
xt

Al

bmwg chair

bmwg mailing list

[email-masked]

bmwg mailing list

[email-masked]