Subject: Re: [bmwg] WGLC: bmwg-protection-term-05 and meth-04

From: "Karu Ratnam (kratnam)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:50:33 -0500

* 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?

Clearly defined and supporting terminology are sufficient.

   * 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?

Adequately defines benchmarking solution and provide sufficient detail.

   * 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.

Not aware of any.

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

Not sure.

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 sure.

   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, will recommend using the benchmarking solution.

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).

There are variations in the environment that may not yield same
benchmarking results in every run, but one should be able to achieve
confident results by running additional iterations.

  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).

Same answer as before.

  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 it provides a very good basis for comparison.

Thank You.

Karu Ratnam, PhD
Cisco Systems
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg