MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Ron Bonica) Yes
(Ralph Droms) No Objection
Comment (2009-08-26 for -)
This sentence in Section 2 doesn't parse: The fact that MPLS forwarding places a different burden on the resources of the network forwarding devices from that of IP forwarding, MPLS forwarding benchmarking specifics are desired.
(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection
A variety of nits... Figure 1 The text refers to DUT ports DA1...DAp and DB1...DBp, but the figure only shows DA1, DA2, DB1, and DB2. --- Section 4 "p => 2" might more usually be expressed as "p >= 2" --- Section 4.1.1 I am uncomfortable with the equation of "remote network" with "MPLS FEC". Perhaps you can say "IP Prefix FEC". --- Section 4.1.2 Is the term "highly RECOMMENDED" a new contribution for draft-ietf-rfc2119bis-00.txt? I think you can either stay with "RECOMMENDED" or move to "MUST". --- Section 22.214.171.124 This document requires only a single entry in the MPLS label stack in an MPLS packet. I think you intend to go further, don't you? Specifically, you don't support more than one label in the stack. --- Section 126.96.36.199 s/Section 188.8.131.52/Section 184.108.40.206/ --- Section 4.1.5 Your section numbers referenced are out by -0.0.1 See 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168, and 4.1.3. May be endemic. Check the whole document. --- Section 4.1.7 s/vaue/value/