Dear Robert,
Thank you very much for your review and comments. Please see my answers
inline.
2024.05.22. 18:30 keltezéssel, Robert Sparks via Datatracker írta:
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-06
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2024-05-22
IETF LC End Date: 2024-05-22
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC with nits
Nits/editorial comments:
There are places in the text that say "The authors are aware" - the
construction seems out of place for a consensus IETF stream document - I'm not
sure if this was the resolution of an argument, or just text that could be
further changed to "Note that" or something similar.
In fact they are the consequences of my academic background. This
expression looks good in research papers (at least I believe so).
I have searched the text for those expressions and I found the following
ones: In the Introduction:
However, none of them discussed, how to apply [RFC4814] pseudorandom
port numbers, when benchmarking stateful NATxy (NAT44, NAT64, NAT66)
gateways. The authors are not aware of any other RFCs that address
this question.
In this case, I believe that it is now fair to leave this sentence as it
was during WGLC. I mean that the authors should take full responsibility
for this statement and should not try to make BMWG members responsible
for it after WGLC.
In section 3.1:
Note: The authors are fully aware of [RFC6890] special purpose IP
address ranges. The [RFC1918] private IP addresses are used to
facilitate an easy understanding of the example. And the authors
consider the usage of the IP addresses reserved for benchmarking
absolutely legitimate.
This note is here, because the nit checker pointed out problems and I
wanted to emphasize that it was NOT a mistake to use those IP addresses.
Perhaps the first sentence is not needed and also the "authors consider"
can be removed from the last sentence. I have rewritten the paragraph as
follows:
Note that the [RFC1918] private IP addresses are used to facilitate
an easy understanding of the example. And the usage of the IP
addresses reserved for benchmarking is absolutely legitimate.
(If the RFC Editor recommends the removal of this text, it will be OK
for me. It is mainly here to prevent people from believing the false
report of the nit checker.) At the end of Section 4.8:
The authors are aware that the performance of removing the entire
content of the connection tracking table at one time may be different
from removing all the entries one by one.
I have changed it to:
It is noted that the performance of removing the entire content of
the connection tracking table at one time may be different from
removing all the entries one by one.
Currently the changes remain in my XML file. I am waiting for one
further review and I plan to submit a new version of the draft when all
reviews are addressed and they are deemed satisfactory by the
corresponding Reviewers.
I support the concerns Michael raised in his tsvart review.
I sent my reply to Michael today. Have you received it? If not, you can
check it in the BMWG mailing archive using the following link:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/cSUddYnLSHKpA6We6U6WuNRwIiA/
Please consider reaching out to the RFC-Editor early for how to best represent
the small block of pseudocode in the xml for the document.
Do you mean that presenting pseudo-code as "artwork" in Figure 5 is not
best solution and it should be changed?
Once again, thank you very much for your review and comments, which
helped us to improve our Internet Draft.
Best regards,
Gábor Lencse
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org
