Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-05-02
Requested 2017-04-18
Requested by Al Morton
Authors Marius Georgescu, Liviu Pislaru, Gabor Lencse
Draft last updated 2017-04-26
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Taylor Yu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06-genart-lc-sparks-2017-04-26
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2017-04-26


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


Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-06
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2017-04-26
IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-02
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Essentially Ready for publication as an Informational RFC, but with some minor issues to address before publication

This document is (with exceptions noted below) straightforward and easy to follow

Minor Issues:

Section 8 is very confusing - I suspect it has been made so by removing things that were in it earlier. Right now it claims to provide additional tests, but the only content is about testing things with firewalls, along with a statement that this document is only targeting network devices that do not have a firewall function. I think you can keep most of the text here (except the statement that you aren't talking about things with firewalls) and remove the confusion by changing the section heading to something like "Tests in the presence of a firewall function".

It's unclear how to apply the formula in Section 10.2.1 to the results that come out of, say, Section 7.3.2, where you are reporting a (minimum, median, maximum) tuple. Some discussion about the applicability of the tests where you recommend against reporting a single number to the methods in this section would help. It would also help to point out that the Xpd result can be go negative (it will go negative for things that become smaller as the number of flows increase, and positive for things that get bigger). If I read this correctly, if throughput (for example) goes to 0 as n increases, Xpd will go to -100%. Similary if latency doubles as n increases, Xpd will go to +100% (and will go to +200% if latency triples).


There are several places where you point to Section 6 where I think you meant to point to Section 7. See the Procedure: line in 10.2.1 for an example. Also make sure 9 is correct where you say "Sections 6 through 9" in section 12.

Please double-check that you meant "larger MTU" in the last paragraph of 5.1. It might be correct, but I find the paragraph confusing.

In 8.1 you meant to point to 5.2, not 5.3

Please try to simplify this sentence: 
  "The duration of each trial SHOULD be at least 60 seconds to reduce the potential gain of a DNS64 server, which is able to exhibit higher performance by storing the requests and thus utilizing also the timeout time for answering them."

(Style comment - please feel free to ignore): Consider deleting "as well" everywhere it occurs in the document - most of the places it is used, the sentence works just as well, and sometimes better, without it.

end of section 5.1.1: Appendix A1 should be Appendix A
please remove the comma in the first sentence of the second paragraph of section 5.2