Subject: [bmwg] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 02:24:13 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04: 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-ipv6-nd/

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

Minor clarification comments:

1) section 2.2.4: "This stream contains two flows, each contributing 500
packets per second to the 1,000 packet per second aggregate."
    Are these packets send alternating or in a block or does that not
matter?

2) section 3.1.1: "When the timer expires, stop the test stream, wait
sufficient time for any queued packets to exit, ..."
  That's the sending queue at the tester? I guess you'd also want to give
it some time to make sure the packets send out can still be received.
Does it makes sense to recommend a time here that's safe?

3) And a more general but even less important question: Isn't the base
test included in the scaling test? And if so, do you still need to define
the base test separately?