Subject: [bmwg] Re: bmwg-mcastm-08.txt: DUT priming

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 15:03:37 -0400

So, if an organization is testing 2 different DUTs,  how can
you be assured that the same behavior is subjected to both
boxes?  I recommend tying down this one variable for the
non-burdened metrics. (Especially, since we have other metrics to 
ascertain overhead...)

Other folks have thoughts on the use of MUST vs. SHOULD here?

-Kevin

Debby Stopp wrote:

>> kevin wrote:
>> 
>>I can't make an assumption about every tested device or test topology.
>>But defining a universal procedural step, we increase the probability
>>of a normalized collection. (In practice, most folks send a short
>>burst of packets, if nothing else, to ensure they've cabled
>>or configured correctly!)  For DUT/SUT or scenarios where this
>>"priming" isn't needed, no harm.  For non-forwarding burdened metrics,
>>sections 4 and 5, you're still collecting a forwarding response
>>WITHOUT consideration  of overhead processing.  For forwarding
>>burden metrics (section 8), DUT priming might not be desirable.
>>(A note saying such should be added to the above text. (E.g.,
>>Priming is a requirement for section 4 and 5 metrics; priming is
>>not a requirement for section 8 (forwarding burdened) metrics. )
>>
> 
> I'm not disagreeing that priming is a good idea; I'm just suggesting that
> it's not always necessary each vendor may like to choose whether they prime
> or not.  I think it's the "MUST" vs. the "SHOULD" symantics.
> 
> 
> debbyS
> 
> 
> 

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

---

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 15:03:37 -0400

-Kevin

---

From: "David Newman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:39:06 -0700

> Other folks have thoughts on the use of MUST vs. SHOULD here?

As Kevin noted there is no harm in learning, even if it's not required by
certain DUT/SUTs. There is considerable harm in skipping this step for
DUT/SUTs that require it.

There is also the matter of consistency with earlier methodologies. Learning
is a MUST in RFC 2889, section 5. A MUST also would be consistent with RFC
2544, Section 23(b).

dn

---

From: "David Newman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 13:39:06 -0700

dn