Subject: [bmwg] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:20:21 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I don't really understand why any of these tests are specific for data
center equipment. These tests can be applied to any equipment. I think the only
point is that these tests are especially important to run for data center
equipment but that doesn't change the fact that the test itself are not
specific for data center equipment. The reason why it's a discuss this time, is
that I further really don't understand why existing tests have to be specified
again is this document even though a test for that case already exists that
specifies exactly the same thing in another RFC; I'm talking about Section 5 on
Head of Line Blocking that specifies the same test as in section 5.5 of RFC2889
(there called Congestion Control which a confusing term because this doesn't
address end-to-end congestion control, anyway...). I didn't check if that's
also the case for any of the other tests.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please provide the appropriate references for DSCP and COS!

Also I find the name of section 6 confusing ("Incast Stateful and Stateless
Traffic ") because your microburst test (section 4) is basically also incast
testing but without TCP cross-traffic. Further the terms stateful and stateless
are also confusing to me; I'd usually use adaptive and constant bit rate
(CBR)/non-adaptive; or is stateful/stateless the commonly-used term in
benchmarking?