Subject: [bmwg] REG:draft-prajac-bmwg-pmtest-00.txt

From: "sudeep g ggg" <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Jan 2016 14:03:27 -0000

Respected All,

I could not able to upload the draft.So I am attaching it by mail.

Regards,
Sudhin

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:10:54 -0500

you must use the ID interface and upload the ID in order to meet the submission requirements of the IETF

Scott

> On Jan 29, 2016, at 9:03 AM, sudeep g ggg <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Respected All,
> 
>  <https://sigads.rediff.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.rediffmail.com/signatureline.htm@Middle?>
> Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.  
> Know More > <http://track.rediff.com/click?url=___http://businessemail.rediff.com?sc_cid=sign-1-10-13___&cmp=host&lnk=sign-1-10-13&nsrv1=host><draft-prajac-bmwg-pmtest-00.txt>_______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:30:55 -0500

Hi Sudhin,

You have many instances of missing boilerplate required in this draft,
which is probably why the “idnits” check refused your submission.
See details below. Please try to resolve these issues and submit again.

Possibly of greater concern is that your draft seems to describe
functional testing – which is outside the scope of BMWG charter.

I have CC’d Kevin Dubray – he is a past chairman of BMWG at Juniper,
who may also be able to help.

regards,
Al
co-chair bmwg

idnits 2.13.02

tmp/draft-prajac-bmwg-pmtest-00.txt:
   Attempted to download draft-prajac-bmwg-pmtest state...
   Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in
     this document.  Found some kind of copyright notice around line 26 but it
     does not match any copyright boilerplate known by this tool.

     Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2016-01-29) according to
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info :

     IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a:
        This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions
        of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

     ... text found in draft:
        This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions
        of BCP 78 and BCP 79.Internet-Drafts are working documents of the
.............................^
        Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its
        working groups.Note that other groups may also distribute working
        documents as Internet-Drafts.Internet-Drafts are draft documents
        valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced,
        or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate
        to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them
        other than as "work in progress."The list of current
        Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of
        Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire
        on July 22, 2016.

     IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2:
        Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document
        authors.  All rights reserved.

     IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3:
        This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
        Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)
        in effect on the date of publication of this document.  Please
        review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
        and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
        extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License
        text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions
        and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified
        BSD License.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about
     Internet-Drafts being working documents.

  ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months
     document validity.

  ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of
     current Internet-Drafts.

  ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of
     Shadow Directories.

  ** There are 6 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.

  == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1
     longer page, the longest (page 1) being 850 lines

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The document seems to lack an Abstract section.

  ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section.

  ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section.

  ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
     2.2 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
     when there are no actions for IANA.)

  ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section.

  ** There are 31 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 5 characters in excess of 72.

  ** There are 2 instances of lines with control characters in the document.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Couldn't figure out when the document was first submitted -- there may
     comments or warnings related to the use of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378
     work that could not be issued because of this.  Please check the Legal
     Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info to determine
     if you need the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.

  -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check
     skipped.

  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- Missing reference section? 'ITU-Y1731' on line 632 looks like a reference

     Summary: 13 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
     the items above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1       Network Working Group                              Praveen Ananthasankaran
2       Internet Draft                                       Sudhin Jacob
3       Intended Status: Experimental                        Juniper Networks
4                                                            January 25,2016

6                              draft-prajac-bmwg-pmtest-00.txt

8       Status of This Memo

10      This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
11      provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.Internet-Drafts are working documents
12      of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
13      groups.Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as
14      Internet-Drafts.Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum
15      of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
16      at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
17      material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."The list
18      of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
19      http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
20      The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed
21      at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
22      This Internet-Draft will expire on July 22, 2016.

24      Copyright Notice

26      Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
27      document authors. All rights reserved.This document is subject
28      to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust’s Legal Provisions Relating to IETF
29      Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the
30      date of publication of this document. Please review these documents
31      carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
32      respect to this document.

34      Table of Contents

36      1.Introduction....................................................3

38      2.Test Setup......................................................4

40        2.1.Test Topology...............................................4

42        2.2.Network.....................................................4

44      3.Test Procedure..................................................5

46      4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

48      5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

50      6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

52      7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

54      7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..15

56      1.Introduction

58      Performance monitoring explained in ITU Y1731  for measuring the
59      loss and delay over different layer 2 services.This document
60      defines the methodologies for benchmarking performance loss and
61      delay over the layer 2 point to point services running on a router.
62      Hence,the authors have taken the approach of considering PM as a black
63      box, defining the methodology to benchmark the PM feature using various
64      testing methodologies

66      1.1 Terminologies

68      PM - Performance monitoring

70      In-profile - CIR termed as green packets.

72      Out-profile - EIR Yellow/Amber packet.

74      LMM - Loss Measurement Message

76      LMR- Loss Measurement Reply

78      DMM - Delay Measurement Message

80      DMR - Delay MEasurement Reply

82      P Router - Provider Router.

84      PE Router - Provider Edge Router

86      CE Router - customer Edge  Router

88      DUT - Device under Test

90      Frame Lossfar-end = |TxFCb[tc] – TxFCb[tp]| – |RxFCb[tc] – RxFCb[tp]|

92      Frame Lossnear-end = |TxFCf[tc] – TxFCf[tp]| – |RxFCl[tc] – RxFCl[tp]|

94      Frame Delay = (RxTimeb – TxTimeStampf) – (TxTimeStampb – RxTimeStampf)

96      2.1 Test Topology

98             | Traffic Generator
99      +----------+
100     |          |
101     |  PE2     |
102     |          |
103     +----------+
104         |
105         |
106     +----------+
107     |          |
108     |  Core    |
109     |  router  |
110     +----------+
111        |
112        |
113     +----------+
114     |          |
115     |   DUT    |
116     |    PE1   |
117     +----------+
118          |
119          |--- Traffic Generator

121     2.2 Network

123     The network consists of 3 routers and 2 traffic generator ports.DUT
124     is acting as one of  PE to CE. The core router is acting as P router.
125     There is layer 2(point to point) services running from PE1 to PE2.
126     On the top of that performance monitoring loss and delay measurements
127     are running.PE1 is acting as DUT.

129     3.Test Procedure

131     The test defined to measure the performance of DUT near end and far end
132     loss, the packets transferred over a period of time. Measuring single class
133     Colored, colorless loss measurement, multiclass colored and colorless
134     loss measurement. Average delay, best case and worst case delay.

136     3.1  Basic Functional testing

138     3.1.1 Check the near end and far end loss for single class colorless
139     loss measurement in DUT.
…

From: bmwg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Scott Bradner
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:11 AM
To: sudeep g ggg
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [bmwg] REG:draft-prajac-bmwg-pmtest-00.txt

Scott

On Jan 29, 2016, at 9:03 AM, sudeep g ggg <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Respected All,

Regards,
Sudhin
[https://sigads.rediff.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/www.rediffmail.com/signatureline.htm@Middle]<https://sigads.rediff.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.rediffmail.com/signatureline.htm@Middle?>

Know More ><http://track.rediff.com/click?url=___http://businessemail.rediff.com?sc_cid=sign-1-10-13___&cmp=host&lnk=sign-1-10-13&nsrv1=host>

<draft-prajac-bmwg-pmtest-00.txt>_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg