Subject: [bmwg] Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-00

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 17:25:04 -0500

Hello: I have reviewed draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-00.  The
details of the review are below.  The summary of the review is that
the work needs some tweaks, but mostly it is in the right direction.

Detailed comments:

- S1, first paragraph: "...although some standards address specific
  areas." Perhaps you can provide references for a couple of them?

- S1, first paragraph, last line: s/lab/laboratory/

- S1.1, first bullet item, 2-4 lines: the left justification seems off.
   (Same issue with the last sentence fragment on the page.)

- S1.1, last paragraph: Expand MEF on first use.

- S4.2, first bullet item: Do you need second order moment to see
  dispersion around the average, but perhaps if the number of time the
  metric will be  executed is small (your example shows 10 executions),
  then this may not be needed.  Just wanted to point out.

- S5.2.1, last sentence of the section: "Other examples are simply
  well-known application traffic types."  Two comments: first:
  s/well known/well-known/
  and second: a couple of examples of such application traffic types may
  be helpful --- are we talking about ftp here?  or ssh?  Both are
  applications, but each has a different behaviour and expectations of
  packet delivery.

- S6.1, first paragraph: "policer" --- is there such a word?  At least
  Merrian-Webster does not think so.  Perhaps you can replace it as
  follows:
  s/policer performance/performance of the entity engaging in policing/

  Similarly, in the next paragraph,
  s/policer tests/tests on the entity engaging in policing/

  I suspect this may be a general comment since I see more instances of
  "policer" in S6.1.1 and beyond.

- End of S6 contains Appendix A and Appendix B.  Normally, when using
  xml2rfc, appendices appear after the references.  I suspect that the
  RFC editor will fix these, but wanted to give a heads-up.

- I do not see any reporting format, so I am unsure how the laboratory
  personnel / testers will report the results of the test so as to allow
  different equipment to be compared.  If there is a companion document
  that covers this, then please disregard this comment.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

---

From: Barry Constantine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:16:31 +0000

Hello Vijay,

Thank for the review.

Your comments all look very helpful and we will incorporate them into the next draft.

Thanks again,
Barry Constantine

________________________________________
From: Vijay K. Gurbani [[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 6:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Barry Constantine
Subject: Review of  draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-00

Detailed comments:

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

- vijay