MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows
RFC 5695
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (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 4.1.4.1 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 4.1.4.4 s/Section 4.1.3.1/Section 4.1.4.1/ --- Section 4.1.5 Your section numbers referenced are out by -0.0.1 See 4.1.4.1, 4.1.4.2, and 4.1.3. May be endemic. Check the whole document. --- Section 4.1.7 s/vaue/value/
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection