Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-04

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:38:49 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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

Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-04
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Apr-26-2013
IETF LC End Date: May-06-2013
IESG Telechat date: May-30-2013

This document is ready as an Informational.  A couple of minor comments
that can benefit the draft below.

Major: 0
Minor: 2
Nits: 0

Minor:

- S1, 4th paragraph: "An IMIX suited for one networking device and
  deployment will not be appropriate for another."  I suspect the
  variability of the packet sizes has to do with the vendor whose device
  is being benchmarked.  In other words, a constant, K, used as a packet
  size by Vendor A does not mean that K can be used while benchmarking a
  device by Vendor B.  If so, it may be helpful to augment the quoted
  sentence above by the phrase "because packet sizes differ across
  different vendor devices."

- S3, "o  Non-RFC2544 packet sizes ... in the table." --- Is this not
  already covered in S4 (Custom IMIX)?  When I read the quoted bullet
  item, I immediately thought of some sort of an encoding scheme to
  encode non standard packet sizes, which is what S4 does.  Maybe I
  am missing something?

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq