RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-bmwg-issu-meth-01

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks for your comments/agreement, Roni. For a bit more background,

BMWG has been specifying report formats in its RFCs since the

beginning, even describing the axes for graphical presentation.

 

regards,

Al

doc shepherd

 

From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 12:50 AM
To: 'Sarah Banks'
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-issu-meth.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-bmwg-issu-meth-01

 

Hi Sarah,

What you are saying make sense and I see no problem with having guidelines for a report for the manufacturers. In my view the content of such report will be defined by service providers as part of their product evaluation, so the full list can serve them as a check list for defining their preferred report.

Regards

Roni

 

From: Sarah Banks [mailto:sbanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 01 July, 2015 10:29 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-issu-meth.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-bmwg-issu-meth-01

 

Hi Roni,

          Thanks for your review of the draft, and comments below. With regards to the lack of any specific procedure, the idea was to provide several procedures, and allow the tester to choose, based on their testing needs/topology/etc. However, once a test has been chosen, we felt it best to have SOMETHING defined as required output, otherwise, how would you be able to compare ISSU results across vendors, apples to apples? To that end, we specified a short list of required info for the report, and then a longer list of optional information to include. So part of the info is required, and part isn't, and since part is, we chose to describe both in normative language. Does this make sense?

 

Thanks

Sarah

 

On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

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-issu-meth-01
Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date: 2015–7-1

IETF LC End Date: 2015–7-2

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational  RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

 

According to the abstract this document specifies a set of common methodologies and procedures designed to characterize the overall behavior of a Device Under Test (DUT), subject to an ISSU event. My reading is that it captures the typical procedures and as such is an informational document. It does not recommend any specific procedure yet it RECOMMEND in section 7 defines normative recommendation of which parameters SHOULD be reported in what I understand is a written statement.  I was wondering if all parameters are needed and when you can report only part of them , maybe just make it non normative 

 

Nits/editorial comments: