Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-Art Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-13

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:08:41 +0300

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-13
Reviewer:  Christian Vogt
Review Date:  August 10, 2007
IETF LC End Date:  --
IESG Telechat date:  --

Summary:

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has a nit that I
think should be fixed before publication.

Comments:

Section 3 structures the components of convergence time and stresses the
importance that all of these components be considered by a convergence
test.  I was wondering how fine-grained a convergence test's
measurements should be:  Should the test simply measure the sum of all
components, or should it in addition provide the duration of each
component separately?  Would the 2nd option provide any added value over
the first in practice?  I think it would make sense to add a brief
assessment about this to section 3.

Kind regards,
- Christian

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:42:06 +0300

Scott:

> I appreciate your comment and question.  Measurement of each component
> requires white-box knowledge of the DUT.  The BMWG by charter focuses on
> black-box measurements, which is the externally-observable sum of the
> components.

Yeah, I was assuming that.  Maybe you just add a sentence in section 3
clarifying that "A black-box convergence test measures the sum of these
convergence time components; there is no need to obtain a separate
measurement for each of the components."  Do you think this makes sense?

- Christian