Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-09
review-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-09-secdir-lc-montville-2017-06-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-06-13
Requested 2017-05-30
Authors Lucien Avramov, jhrapp@gmail.com
Draft last updated 2017-06-09
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Tim Chown (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Adam Montville (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Adam Montville
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-09-secdir-lc-montville-2017-06-09
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 19)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2017-06-09

Review
review-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-09-secdir-lc-montville-2017-06-09

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

Bottom Line: Almost Ready

About Security Considerations
For your security considerations phrases like "are limited to" and "will
be", and I would suggest that these are your MUSTs or SHOULDs. Given the
"MUST NOT" you have in the second paragraph, it seems that "MUST" should be
used instead of "SHOULD". In that sense, then, I would suggest the
following statements be updated: 1) "Benchmarking activities as described
in this memo MUST be limited to technology characterization using
controlled stimuli...", "The benchmarking network topology MUST be an
independent test setup..."

That said, you might consider softening the "MUST NOT" and consequent
"MUST" statements to "SHOULD NOT" and "SHOULD", respectively. This because
there may well be circumstances where testing in a production environment
is necessary.


About Rest of Draft
The draft describes well-understood concepts of FILO, FIFO, LILO, and LIFO.
It then goes on to recast these definitions as "first bit last bit" (or
"FL"), and "last bit last bit" (or "LL"), and so on. However, the draft
does not really make use of these alternate expressions for the
aforementioned well-understood concepts. I recommend picking one of these
representations and using it consistently throughout; moreover, I recommend
sticking with FILO, FIFO, LILO, and LIFO.

There's a sentence in 2.2 which reads, "Data Center DUTs are frequently
store-and-forward for smaller packet sizes and then adopting a cut-through
behavior." This feels incomplete. When does it adopt cut-through behavior?
Is that adopted for larger packet sizes? Is it worthwhile to talk at all
about the change threshold?

Section 1.2 describes the generally expected definition format. However,
section 2 seems to immediately depart from that to some degree by placing
terms as top-level sections (i.e. "2. Latency") with children for
definition, discussion, and measurement units. To compound this confusion,
section 6 further departs from the expectation set in 1.2 by using the
top-level section as a grouping construct for "Buffering" (without defining
"Buffering"). Buffering has two children which are "buffer" and "incast".
Buffer, itself is never defined, but instead has a "definition" subsection
 consisting of many other terms. The same sort of thing happens with "6.2
Incast". Please pick a format and make clear what things are terms, and
which are not terms. Then rewrite section 1.2, so that it more properly
describes what the reader should expect.

There are, at several locations, uses of the capitalized word "CAN" in a
way that suggests normative-type intent. "CAN" does not seem to be an
RFC2119 keyword. In one case, it seems that "CAN" may actually mean a lower
case "may" or "can" (see 6.1.1 on page 12).


Nits
Throughout the draft sometimes terms are capitalized, sometimes they are
not. I believe they should more often not be capitalized, but if they are,
do so consistently.

Generally speaking (this may be stylistic) the first word after a colon
(':') should be capitalized. Example: This is.

Find acronyms/initializations and ensure they're expanded at least on the
first occurrence (i.e. "PDV" on page 6)

In the abstract s/as it is to/as to/

In 2.1 s/in unit of/in units of/ and s/store forward/store and forward/

In 2.3 s/follow:/follows:/

In 2.3, item 2: Is "proceed data" a common term?

In 4.1 s/test on/tests on/

In 4.3 s/of :/of:/

In 4.3 s/[4.1s]/section 4.1/

In 5.3, if "CAN" is changed to "can", then s/line rate can measured/line
rate can be measured/

In 6.1.1 s/expressed in Byte;/B (bytes),/ or s/expressed in Byte;/Bytes,/

In 6.1.1 s/amount of buffer a single/amount of buffer for a single/

In 6.1.1 recommend striking "it is a burst"

In 6.2.1 s/by synchronous/by synchronous arrival time/

In 6.2.2 s/In a ingress/In an ingress/

In 6.2.2 s/In either cases/In either case/

In 6.2.3 s/non null/non-null/

In 7.3 the first paragraph could be improved by simply writing, "When S
represents the payload bytes, which does not include packet or TCP headers,
and Ft is the Finishing Time of the last sender, the Goodput, G, is then
measured by the following formula..."


Kind regards,

Adam