"Line rate" is "fill the 100Mbit link with 100 million bits each second". Of course the overhead is included in that, since the overhead also goes over the wire
I'm many years away from such topics but I don't remember this being the case, moreover specs for net equipment was (is) on pps with the details stating usually 2-3 packet size categories. I'm interested on some reference on what you wrote
As the article calls it, the gold standard. If a device is capable of forwarding/switching packets at the smallest packet size line rate on all interfaces at the same time you don't have to think too much about its performance when designing your network. Haven't worked much with hardware for a few years but it was common that Cisco switches were not capable of this.
Vendors I've seen usually use one of a few "standard" packet size mixes e.g. imix. Nobody uses smallest size frames because nobody can hit their headline perf numbers for that, and it's not representative of real-world usage anyway.
This is a lazy definition and won’t get you past “Go” when making network equipment. Why not use 9000 byte “Jumbo” frames? You’ll only need to process 1,383 packets per second to fill the link!