Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-16
review-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-16-opsdir-lc-chown-2017-06-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-06-13
Requested 2017-05-30
Authors Lucien Avramov, jhrapp@gmail.com
Draft last updated 2017-06-21
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 Tim Chown
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-16-opsdir-lc-chown-2017-06-21
Reviewed rev. 16 (document currently at 19)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2017-06-21

Review
review-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-16-opsdir-lc-chown-2017-06-21

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These 
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the 
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews 
during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments 
just like any other last call comments. 

The draft describes the definitions used for benchmarking network switches and routers under test, where they would normally be deployed in a data centre context, though its scope may be applicable to such devices deployed in broader contexts.

Overall, the document is well written, and I believe it to be Ready with minor nits.

General comment:

It would be interesting to see an Appendix with an example of a recorded test using the language defined here.

Specific comments:

Section 1:

“- Low amount of buffer (in the Mb range)”
Change to MB?  (given later you refer to KB/MB/GB as the measurement unit for buffers)

Section 2.1

Expand DUT on first use.

Section 3.1

Perhaps clarify relationship of Delay and Latency, since you focus on Latency in the document and not Delay?

Last para, you say “If” here, but for Latency the FILO timestamp was a MUST in Section 2?  This doesn’t seem consistent?

Expand PDV on first use.

Section 6.1.1

“1518 bytes frames” -> “1518 byte frames”

Section 7.1, 

Why is ‘and’ in quotes here?  Not sure you can say the balance is defined by goodput?  Do you mean that goodput is an indication of the balance?  For standard TCP, a very small loss can have a dramatic effect on application throughput.

The second para should follow the first, change “[RFC2647].  Goodput…” to “[RFC2647], i.e., goodput…”

Section 7.3

I don’t understand how the example given correlates to G = S/Ft ?  

There’s a few typos in this section; please re-check.