Hi Shawn,
Thank you for your review!
FYI We applied changes from all reviews in gerrit of LFN FD.io CSIT open-source
project.
Here the main link to the patchset with to .md, .txt and .xml files:
43590: fix(ietf): MLRsearch draft 12 for nits |
https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/csit/+/43590
Below our comments and direct links to changed lines based on your review:
> - SUT and DUT definitions written twice
The second occurrence is important (normative), the first occurrence is informational but more readable with copied text. We think no edits in this regard would improve the document.
> - Line jump after "The proliferation of software DUTs"
Fixed:
https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/csit/+/43590/7/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-12.md#217
> - more concise terms for "wander", "way more", etc.
Fixed:
https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/csit/+/43590/7/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-12.md#373
Fixed:
https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/csit/+/43590/7/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-12.md#418
- Not needed: ", a draft at the time of writing.".
Fixed:
https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/csit/+/43590/7/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-12.md#1044
Many thanks again for your review – appreciate!
Regards,
Maciek and Vratko (authors)
From: Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) <mkonstan@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 1 August 2025 at 14:53
To: Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@xxxxxxxxx>, secdir@xxxxxxxx <secdir@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: bmwg@xxxxxxxx <bmwg@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) <mkonstan@xxxxxxxxx>, Vratko Polák -X (vrpolak - PANTHEON TECH
SRO at Cisco) <vrpolak@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-11 ietf last call Secdir review
Thank you Shawn.
Agree with your review nits. Will wait for more review comments and nits from IETF last call, before updating the draft.
Unless you advise us to do it now.
Regards,
-Maciek
From: Shawn Emery via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, 20 July 2025 at 07:54
To: secdir@xxxxxxxx <secdir@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: bmwg@xxxxxxxx <bmwg@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bmwg] draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-11 ietf last call Secdir review
Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch
Title: Multiple Loss Ratio Search
Reviewer: Shawn Emery
Review result: Has Nits
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.
This informational track draft specifies a new methodology that allows for
Multiple Loss Ratio searches (MLRsearch), which in turn can be used to
benchmark data plane throughput.
The security considerations section does exist and provides assertions that the
benchmark functions described in the draft are executed in a controlled and
constrained laboratory environment. As a result, the devices being tested MUST
NOT be connected to devices that could potentially forward test traffic to
production or test management networks. Lastly, any device tested will have
the same security implication in the test environment as they would in a
production environment. I agree with these assertions and can't think of any
other security considerations for this type of draft.
General Comments:
None.
Editorial Comments:
The SUT and DUT definitions are repeated in 2.2 and 4.4.1.
The following has a line-jump:
The proliferation of software DUTs, with frequent software updates
and a
number ...
Suggest more concise terms for "wander", "way more", etc.
Not needed: ", a draft at the time of writing.".
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list -- bmwg@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to bmwg-leave@xxxxxxxx
