Last Call Review for draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt

Last Call Review Template

I-D Title(s): MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology
Filename(s): draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt
Reviewer Name: Jeff Byzek
Date: 10/1/08

Please organize your comments in the following categories below.

Review Summary:

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?

   * If a methodology memo, does the methodology AND its
     corresponding terminology adequately define a benchmarking
     solution for its application area? Do the methodologies present

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00

Dear Al and BMWG,

This is my last call review for "MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking
Methodology" (draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt).

I fully support this work. Please let me know if you need additional
information.

Best regards,
Chip

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

I-D Title(s): MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology
Filename(s): draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt
Reviewer Name: Ciprian Popoviciu
Date: 10/12/08

Review Summary:

I believe the recommendations of this document are useful in the
industry and the work does a very good job in both methodology and
coverage.

Overall:

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

Review: WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00

Hello Al,

Here is my review in response to the BMWG initial WGLC for MPLS Forwarding
Benchmarking Methodology co-authored by Aamer Akhter and Rajiv Asati. 

I-D Title(s): MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology
Filename(s): draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt
Reviewer Name: Rajiv Papneja
Date: October 13, 2008

Review Summary:

Let me start by saying that since inception of this effort, I have been
supporter of this draft as it provides guidelines for test engineers for
measuring the MPLS Forwarding performance within the bounds of RFC 2544.  

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, I believe so. It does define the scope of work, and also relates it as
an extension of the RFC 2544. 

   * 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

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00

Reminder!

A little more than a week is left on this WGLC.

Have you read a draft today? bmwg needs you!
Al
bmwg chair

At 10:13 AM 9/24/2008, Al Morton wrote:
>BMWG:
>
>A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on
>
>"MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology"
>draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt
>
>will be open from 24 September through October 24, 2008.
>
>This is the "first" WGLC on the draft.  It was developed as
>draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth-04.txt and adopted as a WG draft.
>
>As with all initial WGLCs, volunteers are needed to complete
>the Last Call Review Template, available here:
>http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/LastCallTemplate.txt
>
>Use of the template and bmwg's last call process can be found here:
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg00846.html
>
>Please weigh-in on whether or not you feel that this Internet-Draft
>should be given to the Area Directors and IESG for consideration in

I-D Action:draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-16.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Considerations for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
	Author(s)       : S. Poretsky, I. Property
	Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-16.txt
	Pages           : 6
	Date            : 2008-10-15

This document discusses considerations for benchmarking Interior 
Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence for any link-state IGP, such 
as Intermediate System-Intermediate System (ISIS) and Open-Shorted 
Path first (OSPF).
A companion methodology document is to 
be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through externally 
observable (black box) data plane measurements.  A companion

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-16.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

_______________________________________________

I-D Action:draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-16.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Benchmarking Methodology for Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
	Author(s)       : S. Poretsky, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-16.txt
	Pages           : 19
	Date            : 2008-10-15

This document describes the methodology for benchmarking Interior 
Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence.
The methodology is to 
be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through externally 
observable (black box) data plane measurements.  The methodology 
can be applied to any link-state IGP, such as ISIS and OSPF.

 Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-16.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

I-D Action:draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-16.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Terminology for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
	Author(s)       : S. Poretsky, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-16.txt
	Pages           : 21
	Date            : 2008-10-15

This document describes the terminology for benchmarking Interior 
Gateway Protocol (IGP) Route Convergence.
The terminology is to 
be used for benchmarking IGP convergence time through externally 
observable (black box) data plane measurements.  The terminology 
can be applied to any link-state IGP, such as ISIS and OSPF.

Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-16.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

Fwd: Design Team to Resolve Dave Ward's DISCUSS on IGP/Dataplane Drafts

BMWG:

A 2+ week WG Last Call period for the Internet-Drafts on:

Benchmarking Methodology for Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Terminology for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence
Considerations for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data Plane Route Convergence

will be open from today through October 31, 2008.

This is the "final" WGLC on these drafts.  Earlier versions reached WG
consensus to be published last year. A Design Team was formed to address
the DISCUSSes raised during IESG review (see message attached below),
and the team performed a very thorough review. The editor believes he
has made a reasonable effort to address all concerns raised, but that
this should be tested with a WGLC and subsequent IESG review.

Please weigh-in on whether or not these Internet-Drafts are
ready for publication as an Informational RFCs.
Send your comments to this list or acmorton <at> att.com.

URLs for these Internet-Draft are:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-16.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-16.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-16.txt

Al
bmwg chair

>...

WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00

Al and BMWG,

Below is my WGLC review of draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00. 
In general I'm in support of progressing this draft.

Thx,
Silvija

Last Call Review Template

I-D Title(s): MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology
Filename(s): draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt
Reviewer Name: Silvija Dry
Date: 10/16/08

Please organize your comments in the following categories below.

Review Summary:

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

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00

At 10:13 AM 9/24/2008, Al Morton wrote:
>BMWG:
>
>A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on
>
>"MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology"
>draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-00.txt
>
>will be open from 24 September through October 24, 2008.

I have three comments as WG chair:

First, this is a very clearly written draft, and I'd like to
thank the authors for their persistent and skillful efforts
to pare this draft down to the minimum.

I'd like to see the "standard security paragraphs" incorporated
in the text.  This way, it's clear to anyone who picks-up the
RFC that the scope is limited to lab characterization, etc.
There are people who recently referenced RFC 2544 for live network
OAM testing in their standards documents. Not Good.
Clear Scope = Good.

The draft seems to use Frame and Packet interchangeably, and that's
bound to confuse some readers.  Pick the right one.

My remaining comments are below, as a participant.
Al

Section 2, Scope.