Hi Sudhin, Here are my comments for: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kishjac-bmwg-evpntest-02 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kishjac-bmwg-evpntest-02>
I think that including PBB-EVPN was a good start towards improving this draft. It also didn’t seem very difficult to do. My comments about your other draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jacpra-bmwg-pmtest-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jacpra-bmwg-pmtest-01>), I think stand here as well. -1- Better structure, clarity and proofreading. It is a bit hard from my perspective to read the document as is. I assume that an improved sections layout and an English check should help. -2- Reporting format is not clear for the proposed benchmarks. -3- Traffic setup is clearer than the other draft, but maybe specifically mentioning the Ethernet frames format, or some wording on that, should help. As a plus, I would add the following. -4- From the test setup/test diagram it is difficult to understand how the test traffic is flowing from one element to the other. -5- EVPN setup. In one instance you say “All four routers except CE are running mpls,[space after comma]bgp " Some wording on how that should be set up, I think would help. Regards, Marius > On Aug 26, 2016, at 22:46, Sudhin Jacob <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have uploaded draft after incorporating the comments received by IETF 96. > Kindly review it and let us know the feedback for adoption. > > Regards, > Sudhin > > _______________________________________________ > bmwg mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
