Subject: [bmwg] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 02:48:14 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Thank you for the work put into this document. I have some regrets about the
amount of typos, bad capitalizations, ...

Special thanks for Sarah Banks' shepherd write-up about the WG process /
consensus.

Please find below 3 blocking DISCUSS points (but should be easy to address),
some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some
nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==

Most of the tests are labelled 'rate' but what they measure is not 'rate' but
'time'. What did I fail to understand ?

-- Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 4.3 --
Perhaps did I fail to understand the purpose of this test but how can it be
that "Flush Rate" is equal to "Relearning Rate" ? Should there be different T1
for flush / relearn ?

-- Section 3.9 --
Please s/ip/IPv4/

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

== COMMENTS ==

As most of the test in section 4 are identical to those in section 3, is there
a reason for having such repetition ? I.e., rather than having a single set of
tests and mentioning the applicability of those tests to the PBB-EVPN scenarios.

-- Abstract --
Suggest to expand PBB as
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt does not have the
compound PBB-EVPN. Same applies in section 1 where the expansion is used but
not defined.

-- Section 2 --
Suggest to mention early that SH = single home and MH = multi-home

Strange use of 'traffic generator' for a box that also receives traffic. Is
there a better word in BMWG ?

Unclear from figure 1 whether the link between SHPE3 and traffic generator acts
as a "PE-CE link" as this link is the only unqualified one.

-- Section 3.1 --
In "X different source and destination MAC address for one vlan" (beside the
singular form for "address") aren't X different source addresses enough to
trigger the MAC learning ? I.e., no need to vary the destination MAC addresses.

Using external scripts to count learned MAC addresses appears very rudimentary
and not very accurate...

-- Section 3.2 --
Suggest to use the same text or similar presentation for the measurement part
as in section 3.1

-- Section 3.9 --
As it can be expected that most of the EVPN are dual-stack, I wonder whether
the 2 single-stack measurements are useful as there could be an interaction
between IPv4 and IPv6 learning. Unsure how to test it though (perhaps 50% IPv4
and 50 IPv6 ?).

-- Section 3.12 --
If "SOAK" is an acronym (based on the all uppercase), then please expand it,
else use "Soak"

== NITS ==

Please always use the all uppercase character for VLAN same for 'ipv6', 'arp',
'ip', ...

Also check punctuations as they should be followed by a space character.

-- Section 5 --
You may want to add a last name to Al in "to thank Al"