Subject: [bmwg] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 03:11:25 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03: No Objection

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-b2b-frame/

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

Thank you for staging changes to resolve the tsvart and secdir
reviewers' comments.

I assume that it goes without saying that the computed StdDev are sample
standard deviations, not population standard deviations.

Section 6

What kind of DUT is only going to have 4 microseconds of buffer?

Section 10.1

It is surprising to see a normative reference being made to the Obsolete
RFC 1944.

Likewise, some of the references are only tenuously referenced and would
seem better characterized as informative (e.g., RFC 6201, RFC 6985).

Section 10.2

On the other hand, if the methods of RFC 8239 SHOULD be used in some
cases, that suggests that it should more properly be characterized as a
normative reference.

Similarly, the TST009 binary search is one of the two options from which
a selection MUST be made, which seems to make it normative as well.

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 19:21:36 +0000

Hi Ben, 
Thanks for your careful read, as always.
I have all the actions below in the working text now.
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 6:11 AM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; Sarah Banks <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
...
[acm] 
I read the example value (0.00004) as 40 microseconds. 
We are seeing values in this range for one of the many container networking options, but we really hope developers can improve the situation (it seems resistant to configuration changes).
The results are not published yet...

> Section 10.1
[acm] 
must be section 1, 
> It is surprising to see a normative reference being made to the Obsolete
[acm] 
ok, that one can be informative.

> seem better characterized as informative (e.g., RFC 6201, RFC 6985).
[acm] 
Yes, that's fine, the citations are purely introductory info.
> cases, that suggests that it should more properly be characterized as a
[acm] 
I'm ok with your reading of normative

> a selection MUST be made, which seems to make it normative as well.
[acm] 
Ok, and this was a good prompt to update the TST009 reference to this year's model (published in December).