Subject: Re: [bmwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-03.txt

From: Bill Cerveny <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:42:37 -0400

My comments on -03:

1) Be careful about recommending RFC 2544 regarding IPv4 blocks for
addressing, as these blocks were listed incorrectly in RFC2544, and
corrected in an errata ... I seem to recall an IANA response regarding
this with a different draft emphasizing this point.

2) Regarding appendix A, I would discourage using specific
vendor/application names in the example mix, as this will minimally tend
to prematurely age the document, in my opinion (In 5 years, or even 2
years, how many of these vendor/applications will still exist?). I also
don't know if there are any concerns or issues with arbitrarily listing
trademarked names in a document.

3) In appendix B, it appears you are saying in the intro that "Ethernet,
IPv4, IPv6, TCP and UDP fields" to be malformed are listed; yet as far
as I can tell, you did not list IPv6 fields.

4) Grammatical: section 4.1.4.3: "Note than calculation ..." -> "Note
that calculation..."

5) Grammatical: section 4.1.3: "minimum rate will attempted" -> "minimum
rate attempted" and "This test MAY be repeated, each ..." perhaps change
to "This test MAY be repeated, with each ..."

6) "Benchmarking Working Group" -> "Benchmarking Methodologies Working
Group" in multiple places.

7) Grammatical (optional): Abstract: "The scenarios in the following
document" -> "The scenarios in this document" 

Bill Cerveny

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012, at 11:24 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group
>  of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title           : Benchmarking Methodology for Content-Aware Network Devices
> 	Author(s)       : Mike Hamilton
>                           Sarah Banks
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-03.txt
> 	Pages           : 19
> 	Date            : 2012-07-31
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document defines a set of test scenarios and metrics that can be
>    used to benchmark content-aware network devices.  The scenarios in
>    the following document are intended to more accurately predict the
>    performance of these devices when subjected to dynamic traffic
>    patterns.  This document will operate within the constraints of the
>    Benchmarking Working Group charter, namely black box characterization
>    in a laboratory environment.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-03
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bmwg-ca-bench-meth-03
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:18:44 -0400

>this with a different draft emphasizing this point.

Both our IPv4 and IPv6 address blocks are encumbered by Errata,
so the wise author will note this in all bmwg memos.

Al