Re: Second WGLC on draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management

you're right, apparently I pasted this comment one too many times...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Constantine [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 7:52 AM
> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Second WGLC on draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management
> 
> Hi Al,
> 
> Concerning the several comments in the area of Measurement units, I am
> unsure what is intended for some of these.  One example below:
> 
>    - Shaper Rate (SR): the Shaper Rate is only applicable to the  traffic
> shaping tests.  The SR represents the average egress output rate (bps)
> over the test interval.
> 
> ACM] determine and add:
> Measurement Units for reported values.
> 
> In this example, the SR is bps, so sorry I must be missing something
> obvious concerning your request.
> 
> Thanks,
> Barry
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: bmwg [[email protected]] on behalf of MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> [[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 2:10 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [bmwg] Second WGLC on draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management
> 
> BMWG -FYI this WGLC ends tomorrow.
> 
> Hi Barry and Ramki,
> 
> These are my comments on
>                       Traffic Management Benchmarking
>                       draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management-01.txt
> 
> Al
> (as participant)
> 
> Note: as Document Shepherd, I see quite a few nits generated
> by the nits-checker:
> https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-
> bmwg-traffic-management-01.txt
> 
> 
> High-level:
>    7. Security Considerations
> 
>    8. IANA Considerations
> 
>    9. Conclusions
> 
> Security and IANA sections are Mandatory, and cannot be blank.
> 
> I saw a few "TBD" in section 6, questions for Ramki. . .
> 
> The new procedures add considerable needed details, but also
> raise a few questions.
> 
> When considering repeatability over multiple test runs, there could
> be a statistical measure of deviation for the key benchmarks so that
> the audience can easily assess the degree of consistency observed.
> 
> Detailed comments on a partial version of the draft are attached.
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: bmwg [[email protected]] On Behalf Of MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:30 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [bmwg] Second WGLC on draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management
> 
> BMWG (and AQM):
> 
> A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on
> Traffic Management Benchmarking:
> 
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic-management
> 
> will be open from 10 December 2014 through 6 January, 2015.
> 
> The first WGLC (on -00) closed October 21 2014, with substantial
> comments and the authors believe they are now addressed.
> 
> This draft is continuing the BMWG Last Call Process. See
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg00846.html
> 
> Please read and express your opinion on whether or not this
> Internet-Draft should be forwarded to the Area Directors for
> publication as an Informational RFC.  Send your comments
> to this list or [email protected] and [email protected]
> 
> Al
> bmwg co-chair
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg