Dear RFC Editor,
Please see my answers inline.
On 04/12/2024 00:24, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] As RFC 4814 is mentioned in this document's Abstract and
Introduction, may we remove the reference to it from the title?
Original:
Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814
Pseudorandom Port Numbers
Perhaps:
Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways Using
Pseudorandom Port Numbers
-->
I can accept it. Moreover, as I was thinking about the title, I
noticed something. Originally, the title reflected the content well:
we used a single IP address pair and pseudorandom port numbers (as
recommended by RFC 4814). Later we introduced the usage of multiple,
pseudorandom IP addresses, too. However, we did not update the title
to reflect the change.
To that end, one could use one of the following titles:
"Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways Using
Pseudorandom Port Numbers and Pseudorandom IP Addresses"
or
"Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways Using
Pseudorandom Port Numbers and IP Addresses"
But both of them are rather lengthy. Thus, the best title could be simply:
"*Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways*"
Rationale: This RFC will be the first one talking about benchmarking
of stateleful NAT boxes. The proposed title expresses the topic
clearly and it is concise (it does not contain anything unnecessary).
It should be noted that the current version is partial: it mentions
pseudorandom port numbers but it does not mention pseudorandom IP
addresses. This is not logical.
I discussed it with my co-author, Keiichi Shima and he agrees with the
proposed title.
Is it possible the change the title to this version?
2) <!-- [rfced] Per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), abbreviations
must be expanded upon first use. To avoid expanding "NAPT" upon first use
here and stacking multiple sets of parentheses, we have rephrased as
follows (because "NAPT" is introduced and expanded later in this document).
Please let us know of any objections.
Original:
However, none of them discussed, how to apply [RFC4814] pseudorandom
port numbers, when benchmarking stateful NATxy (NAT44 (also called
NAPT) [RFC3022], NAT64 [RFC6146], and NAT66) gateways. (It should be
noted that stateful NAT66 is not an IETF specification but refers to
an IPv6 version of the stateful NAT44 specification.)
Current:
However, none of them discussed how to apply pseudorandom port numbers from
[RFC4814] when benchmarking stateful NATxy gateways (such as NAT44
[RFC3022], NAT64 [RFC6146], and NAT66). (It should be
noted that stateful NAT66 is not an IETF specification but refers to
an IPv6 version of the stateful NAT44 specification.)
-->
OK.
3) <!-- [rfced] In the sentence below, may we clarify "also in the case of
UDP using the same kind of entries as in the case of TCP" as follows?
Original:
* Connection: Although UDP itself is a connection-less protocol,
stateful NATxy gateways keep track of their translation mappings
in the form of a "connection" also in the case of UDP using the
same kind of entries as in the case of TCP.
Perhaps:
Connection: Although UDP itself is a connectionless protocol,
stateful NATxy gateways keep track of their translation mappings
in the form of a "connection" as well as in the case of UDP using the
same kind of entries as in TCP.
-->
I am not a native speaker. If it sounds better, I am OK with it.
4) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update "in the order of a few times ten
thousand" to "in the order of a few tens of thousands"?
Original:
If it is possible, the size of the source port number range SHOULD be
larger (e.g. in the order of a few times ten thousand), whereas the size of
the destination port number range SHOULD be smaller (may vary from a few to
several hundreds or thousands as needed).
Perhaps:
If it is possible, the size of the source port number range SHOULD be
larger (e.g., in the order of a few tens of thousands), whereas the size of
the destination port number range SHOULD be smaller (may vary from a few to
several hundreds or thousands as needed).
-->
I am not a native speaker, but I trust in you.
Just for clarity: - If there are 1,000 apples in a container, and we
have a few containers, I would say: We have a few thousands of apples.
- If there are 10,000 apples in a container, and we have a few
containers, I would say: We have a few times 10,000 of apples. (This
is the literal translation of what I would say in Hungarian.)
In the latter case, would a native speaker say: "We have a few tens of
thousands of apples."?
5) <!-- [rfced] FYI - To improve readability, we have reformatted the text below
to read as a bulleted list. Please let us know any objections.
Original:
When multiple IP addresses are used, then the port number ranges
should be even more restricted, as the number of potential network
flows is the product of the size of the source IP address range, the
size of the source port number range, the size of the destination IP
address range, and the size of the destination port number range.
Current:
When multiple IP addresses are used, then the port number ranges
should be even more restricted, as the number of potential network
flows is the product of the size of:
* the source IP address range,
* the source port number range,
* the destination IP address range, and
* the destination port number range.
-->
Yes, I like it. I think this formatting helps the understanding.
6) <!-- [rfced] How may we clarify "that is throughput" in the text below?
Original:
Test phase 1 serves two purposes:
1. The connection tracking table of the DUT is filled. It is
important, because its maximum connection establishment rate may
be lower than its maximum frame forwarding rate (that is
throughput).
Perhaps:
Test phase 1 serves two purposes:
1. The connection tracking table of the DUT is filled. This is important
because its maximum connection establishment rate may be lower than its
maximum frame forwarding rate (that is, its throughput).
-->
Perfect.
7) <!--[rfced] As "REQUIRES" is not a key word per RFCs 2119/8174, may we
rephrase this sentence to use "REQUIRED"?
Original:
[RFC4814] REQUIRES pseudorandom port numbers, which the authors
believe is a good approximation of the distribution of the source
port numbers a NATxy gateway on the Internet may face with.
Perhaps:
As described in [RFC4814], pseudorandom port numbers are REQUIRED,
which the authors believe is a good approximation of the distribution
of the source port numbers a NATxy gateway on the Internet may face with.
-->
Yes, this was my intention. Thank you for the correction.
8) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, how may we rephrase "it may be computing
efficiently
generated by preparing" in the text below?
Original:
It may be computing efficiently generated by preparing a
random permutation of the previously enumerated all possible four
tuples using Durstenfeld's random shuffle algorithm [DUST1964].
Perhaps:
Efficient computing may be generated by preparing a
random permutation of the previously enumerated all possible four
tuples using Durstenfeld's random shuffle algorithm [DUST1964].
-->
I am sorry, I do not understand your version. I think that the
ambiguity was caused in the original text by the first word of the
sentence: "It". To that end I would clarify the sentence as follows:
New:
Pseudorandom enumeration of all possible four tuples may be computing
efficiently generated by preparing a
random permutation of the previously enumerated all possible four
tuples using Durstenfeld's random shuffle algorithm [DUST1964].
9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have reformatted the text below to read as a bulleted
list to improve readability. Please review and let us know of any objections.
Original:
Procedure: The Initiator sends a specific number of test frames using
all different four tuples at a specific rate through the DUT. The
Responder counts the frames that are successfully translated by the
DUT. If the count of offered frames is equal to the count of
received frames, the rate of the offered stream is raised and the
test is rerun. If fewer frames are received than were transmitted,
the rate of the offered stream is reduced and the test is rerun.
Current:
The procedure is as follows:
* The Initiator sends a specific number of test frames using all
different four tuples at a specific rate through the DUT.
* The Responder counts the frames that are successfully translated
by the DUT.
* If the count of offered frames is equal to the count of received
frames, the rate of the offered stream is raised and the test is
rerun.
* If fewer frames are received than were transmitted, the rate of
the offered stream is reduced and the test is rerun.
-->
Thank you! I definitely agree with it.
10) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for
content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
content that surrounds it"
(https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
-->
I prefer not using it.
11) <!--[rfced] May we clarify the singular/plural usage in this sentence as
follows??
Original:
...but it is RECOMMENDED to perform measurement series
through which the value of one or more parameter(s) is/are changed to
discover how the various values of the given parameter(s) influence
the performance of the DUT.
Perhaps:
...but it is RECOMMENDED to perform measurement series
through which the value of each parameter is changed to
discover how the various values of the each given parameter influences
the performance of the DUT.
-->
I disagree with this solution.
There may be several parameters. In a given measurement series, only
one of them changes. In another one, two of them changes.
I saw that in the edited version that "is/are" was replaced by "are".
I did not object it in my previous e-mail, because I thought that it
could be better grammatically than my solution, but I feel that
"is/are" fits better to the subjective ("one or more parameter(s)").
12) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
Border Relay (BR)
Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
-->
Thank you.
13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
a. For example, please consider whether "black" should be updated.
"Black box testing" should be kept. It is a well-known and widely-used
term.
b. In addition, please consider whether "tradition" and "traditional" should
be updated for clarity. While the NIST website
<https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
"Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
-->
The term "Traditional NAT" was defined by [RFC3022].
Thank you.
RFC Editor/kf/ap
Once again, thank you very much for your careful editing work!
Best regards,
Gábor Lencse
On Dec 3, 2024, at 3:23 PM,rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2024/12/03
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP –https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
*rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
*auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9693-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9693
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9693 (draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-09)
Title : Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using
RFC 4814 Pseudorandom Port Numbers
Author(s) : G. Lencse, K. Shima
WG Chair(s) : Sarah Banks, Giuseppe Fioccola
Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Mahesh Jethanandani
