Subject: [bmwg] IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology - Last call review template

From: "Rajiv Asati \(rajiva\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:36:13 -0400

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Last Call Review Template

I-D Title(s): IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology

Filename(s):draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-meth-01.txt
Reviewer Name: Rajiv Asati
Date: March 20, 2007

Please organize your comments in the following categories below.

Review Summary:
This document provides an IPv6 specific update to RFC2544 which is very important in supporting the integration of IPv6. The document acurately covers all relevant aspects of benchmarking IPv6. 

Overall:

   * Does/Do the draft(s) provide clear identification of the
     scope of work? E.g., is the class of device, system, or
     service being characterized clearly articulated.

Yes.

   * If a terminology memo, are the measurement areas clearly
     defined or otherwise cited?  Is the working set of
     supporting terminology sufficient and correct?  To your
     knowledge, are the areas of the memo that may conflict
     with other bodies of work? Are there any measurements or
     terminology that are superfluous?  Are any missing?

Yes, the terminology is clearly  defined. 
The document does not conflict with any other ongoing work.
The document contains no superfluous sections and it is complete.

   * If a methodology memo, does the methodology AND its
     corresponding terminology adequately define a benchmarking
     solution for its application area? Do the methodologies present
     sufficient detail for the experimental control of the benchmarks?

Yes.

   * If neither a terminology or methodology, does the offered
     memo offer complementary information important to the use
     or application of the related benchmarking solution?

   * Do you feel there are undocumented limitations or caveats to
     the benchmarking solution being proposed?  If so, please
     describe.

No

   * Does the memo attempt to define acceptance criteria for
     any of the benchmark areas?

Technical Content:  (Accuracy, Completeness of coverage)

   Are definitions accurate? Is the terminology offered relevant?

Yes, the definitions are accurate and the terminology is relevant.

   To your knowledge, are there technical areas that are erroneous?
   Are there questionable technical areas that need to be re-examined
   or otherwise scrutinized.

Not to my knowledge

   Does the solution adequately address IPv6?

Yes

   Do you feel the memo(s) being offered are technically mature enough
   for advancement to informational RFC?

Yes. IPv6 is a mature technology and this document is addressing its architectural characteristics but operational experience, which is being developed, will provide very valuable feedback. 

Clarity and Utility:

  If you had a need, would you utilize the benchmarking solutions
  advocated by this and its related memos?  If not, why?

Yes and I am aware of ongoing benchmarking efforts that use these recommendations.

Conformance to BMWG principles: (see BMWG charter) http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/html.charters/bmwg-charter.html

  Do you have confidence that the benchmarks, as explicitly
  defined, will yield consistent results if repeated on the
  same device (DUT/SUT), multiple times for a given test condition.
  If not, cite benchmark(s) and issue(s).

Yes

  Do you have confidence that the benchmarks, if executed for a
  given test condition, utilizing the documented methodology
  on multiple test infrastructure (e.g., test equipment), would
  yield correct and consistent results on the same DUT/SUT?
  (Said differently, are the benchmark's methodology written
  with enough exacting detail, that benchmark implementation
  differences do not yield a difference in the measured quantities?)
  If not, cite benchmark(s) and issue(s).

Yes

  Do you feel that the benchmarks form a basis of comparison between
  implementations of quantity being characterized? (I.e., are the
  benchmarks suitable for comparing solutions from different vendors.)

Yes

  If not, cite benchmarks and issues.

  For those benchmarks cited above, do you feel that the benchmarks,
  as specified, have universal applicability for the given
  behavior being characterized?  (i.e., benchmarks might not form
  a basis for cross-vendor comparison, can be used universally
  in a different role.)

Yes

Editorial Comments:
(includes any deficiencies noted w.r.t. I-D Nits, spelling, & grammar)
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg