Re: REG: draft-jacpra-bmwg-pmtest-01

Hi Marius,

Let me thank you for the help. It is much appreciated. We will look in to it.

Regards,
Sudhin


From: Marius Georgescu [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:41 PM
To: Sudhin Jacob <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [bmwg] REG: draft-jacpra-bmwg-pmtest-01

Hi Sudhin,

Here are some comments that you or other members of BMWG might find relevant for the draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jacpra-bmwg-pmtest-01

-1- As an overview, the draft would require more structure, clarity and proofreading.
For instance, in Section 4 the are two subsections with the same name (4.2, 4.9) Test procedure.
The same goes for reliability, objective, result and so on.
In terms of clarity and proofreading as well, it seems there is a lot of room for improvement.

-2- For most benchmarks you are describing, the reporting format (expressed in the Result/Test measurement subsections, in my understanding) should be more clear.
To quote:
4.7<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jacpra-bmwg-pmtest-01#section-4.7>.  Result



^

|

+--------------+  Delay Variation

|

+---------------->

 Traffic (0 to 100 percent line rate)

Can you elaborate on what this means.

-3- It is not clear to me what type of traffic should be used when testing.

Sincerely,
Marius Georgescu


On Aug 26, 2016, at 22:50, Sudhin Jacob <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Hi All,

May I humbly request you to review the above draft and give us the comments. I request all those who promised in IETF 96 to give us the comments.

Regards,
Sudhin

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg