Dear RFC Editor,
First of all, thank you very much for your through work!
I have read this version to check your corrections:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693-diff.html
I agree with the vast majority of the changes, but I found two places
where the editing changed the intended meaning of the text:
In Section 4.9 ORIGINAL: The algorithms for the general case are defined
using _C like_ pseudocode in Figure 5
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful#meas_contr_capacity_algo>.
EDITED: The algorithms for the general case are defined using _C, like_
the pseudocode in Figure 5
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693.html#meas_contr_capacity_algo>.
SUGGESTED NEW: The algorithms for the general case are defined using
*C-like* pseudocode in Figure 5
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful#meas_contr_capacity_algo>.
Rationale: I wanted to express that the pseudocode used in Figure 5 was
/similar to the C programming language/ (but not strictly C)
In Section 6.
ORIGINAL: The table MUST be complemented with reporting the relevant
parameters of the DUT. If the DUT is a general-purpose computer and some
software NATxy gateway implementation is tested, then the hardware
description SHOULD include: computer type, CPU type, and number of
active CPU cores, memory type, size and speed, network interface card
type (reflecting also the speed), _the fact that direct cable
connections were used *or* the type of the switch used for
interconnecting the Tester and the DUT_.
EDITED: The table MUST be complemented with reporting the relevant
parameters of the DUT. If the DUT is a general-purpose computer and some
software NATxy gateway implementation is tested, then the hardware
description SHOULD include: the computer type, CPU type and number of
active CPU cores, memory type, size and speed, network interface card
type (also reflecting the speed), _the fact that direct cable
connections were used, *and* the type of the switch used for
interconnecting the Tester and the DUT_.
Here the problem is, that the Tester and the DUT are connected either by
direct cables or through a switch. The original text had an "or" but the
edited text has an "and" between the two. I understand that the original
text did not sound well. Could you please rephrase it so that its
original meaning should remain?
Moreover, I found a mistake that is NOT a results of the editing, but it
was present in the original text, and thus it was definitely my fault.
Could you please correct it?
In Section 4.9
OLD:
During test phase 1, the number of test frames received by the Responder
equals the number of test frames sent by the Initiator. In this case,
the connections are validated in t_est phase 1_.
NEW:
During test phase 1, the number of test frames received by the Responder
equals the number of test frames sent by the Initiator. In this case,
the connections are validated in *test phase 2*.
Rationale: The validation deliberately happens in test phase 2. (In test
phase 1 only the Initiator sends test frames to the Responder. For
validation, the Responder sends test frames to the Initiator in test
phase 2.)
I have seen your other e-mail with several questions. I will answer them
in a separate e-mail.
Best regards,
Gábor Lencse
On 04/12/2024 00:23, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2024/12/03
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP –https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
*[email protected] (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
*[email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9693
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9693 (draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-09)
Title : Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using
RFC 4814 Pseudorandom Port Numbers
Author(s) : G. Lencse, K. Shima
WG Chair(s) : Sarah Banks, Giuseppe Fioccola
Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Mahesh Jethanandani
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
