Subject: [Gen-art] Second last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 21:12:36 -0400

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-11
Reviewer: Tom Taylor
Review Date: 2014-10-02
IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-09
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Ready with minor issues and nits. I did not check out the 
correctness of the code in Appendix A.

Major issues:
------------

Minor issues:
------------

(1) Sec. 4.10 paragraphs 3 and 4: I believe these are about setting the 
initial value for the attempt rate. The first paragraph offers the 
alternative of using a vendor-provided value R as a starting point or 
using r=R as a starting point. Doesn't seem like two alternatives.

The second paragraph ignores all this and sets r=100 as the starting 
point. But then it repeats text about using a vendor-supplied value.

The two paragraphs need cleaning up.

(2) The algorithm in 4.10 seems fairly unsophisticated, and amounts to 
ten iterations of constrained binary search. Was application of Newton's 
Method
http://www.ima.umn.edu/%7Emiller/Newton-MVT.pdf
to give you faster convergence and shorter test runs considered?

Nits/editorial comments:
-----------------------

IDNits requests that the code in Appendix A be preceded by a <CODE 
BEGINS> line and terminated by a <CODE ENDS> line.

Sec. 3 para 2 last line: s/arrangements/arrangement/

Next para: spell out EA as presumably "Emulated Agents" on first use? 
Term is from the terminology document.

Add <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> around the pseudo-code in 4.10.

Reference [I-D.sip-bench-term] is now dated July, 2014 (version -11).

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:29:48 +0200

Thanks for the review, Tom. Was there an answer to the questions or edits?

Jari

On 03 Oct 2014, at 04:12, Tom Taylor <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Summary: Ready with minor issues and nits. I did not check out the correctness of the code in Appendix A.
> 
> Major issues:
> ------------
> 
> Minor issues:
> ------------
> 
> (1) Sec. 4.10 paragraphs 3 and 4: I believe these are about setting the initial value for the attempt rate. The first paragraph offers the alternative of using a vendor-provided value R as a starting point or using r=R as a starting point. Doesn't seem like two alternatives.
> 
> The second paragraph ignores all this and sets r=100 as the starting point. But then it repeats text about using a vendor-supplied value.
> 
> (2) The algorithm in 4.10 seems fairly unsophisticated, and amounts to ten iterations of constrained binary search. Was application of Newton's Method
> IDNits requests that the code in Appendix A be preceded by a <CODE BEGINS> line and terminated by a <CODE ENDS> line.
> 
> Next para: spell out EA as presumably "Emulated Agents" on first use? Term is from the terminology document.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 07:31:15 -0500

> Thanks for the review, Tom. Was there an answer to the questions or

Jari: I have not got back to Tom regarding the edits yet as I was
waiting for IESG review to be done.  I was planning to then attend
to both the Gen-ART and IESG comments on the drafts.

Cheers,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:23:45 +0200

Ok. Thanks.

Jari

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:45:57 -0400

Nothing so far.

Tom

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:57:44 -0400

Do you need pseudo-code for Newton's Method, to see how it works. My 
experience was that 3-4 iterations would get convergence.

Tom

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:04:22 -0500

> experience was that 3-4 iterations would get convergence.

Tom: Thanks.  I will take a look at the URL you provided.  The code
should be easy.

I will get back to you.

Cheers,

- vijay