Subject: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-05.txt

From: "Chip Popoviciu \(cpopovic\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:12:28 -0400

Scott and Shankar,
 
Here are a few comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-05.txt.
 
- Instead of "Configuration set" wouldn't "Operational Profile" capture better the scope?
- Page 4, Figure 1 seems to indicate that all Management is done out of band, we should have inband management as well
- Page 4, figure 2, why is the Data plane represented differently in a logical diagram? The other planes could also have in-out interfaces.
- Page 5, under multicast parameters, we should have number of group members (IGMP, MLD) number of PIM neighbors, a way to quantify the replication that the system performs.
- Page 5, Data Plane, there is no discussion of QoS in the document, is there a reason for its omission?
- Page 7, Is the "health" of the DUT evaluated in any way? Processor utilization, memory utilization, buffers, etc. Typically, operations people have limits set for what they feel acceptable operational parameter values.
- Page 8, 5th point in section 4. We have a list of stimuli which would lead to instability but the procedure is not well defined. This benchmark involves multiple parameters so structure is needed when driving instability. In other words something like: Each stimulus is applied one at a time, you wait x amount of time after recovery and then apply the next. Or, all stimuli are applied at the same time.
 
Editorial:
 
- Page 4, section 3.3. the following text is unclear:
  "The information that are the Configuration Sets, Instability  
   Conditions, and Benchmarks, as defined in [4]."
-Page
 
Best Regards,
Chip
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg