Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (with COMMENT)

Jacob Rapp <jrapp@vmware.com> Thu, 22 June 2017 05:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jrapp@vmware.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C1C1200CF; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=onevmw.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DdO7EKajLfqC; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02on0067.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.37.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D425127A90; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=onevmw.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-vmware-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=s134+dy4SP38uOVx209t+gUG6UFhh5r1e524by0hTQc=; b=QRPLzVwPJigju1aJvv9gtCzCrriUbDsgXwrTb55BMfNI/TIbAebkh1TbroujiAdFflJxs9cezDOckTmJWQf0G5cjwOcIoj4d1u3Kn7c0vrKrUjTPgWNq5seJ/wT8x/PFe7bqUAW9sa1fyVBMTqGRI8GHrcNJaxuNSxEgUR0k+Fo=
Received: from CY1PR0501MB1673.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.138.158) by CY1PR0501MB1130.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.144.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1199.6; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:02:16 +0000
Received: from CY1PR0501MB1673.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.138.158]) by CY1PR0501MB1673.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.138.158]) with mapi id 15.01.1199.016; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:02:16 +0000
From: Jacob Rapp <jrapp@vmware.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology@ietf.org>, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, "bmwg-chairs@ietf.org" <bmwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHS6vo3hJZEKl8nkESh2AD+ujkPHaIwUtCA
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:02:15 +0000
Message-ID: <88C9C25C-E2E8-4466-98A0-341CD30243B7@vmware.com>
References: <149809634844.30729.7905314498887048672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <149809634844.30729.7905314498887048672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=vmware.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [108.198.96.247]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR0501MB1130; 20:RsNAMMKmiwfaGNkZ1uWxUfNESWuxybBSEPYeFRineSYKKUcofWuMdPmVH0iBGaqu7Ij/thG+FrNguLcd69ort/FeSfSydCsyInT9t00I+XXwLs0C8GGR0HmIkSMWQ+FlE1GifHFdWx0V7GkSQDaFhykozrxoCwRA81jySrTG/6Q=
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f03b25a8-6c8d-4268-85ec-08d4b92bda1f
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(201703131423075)(201703031133081); SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1130;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY1PR0501MB1130:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY1PR0501MB1130CDAC74155857F0D63094D6DB0@CY1PR0501MB1130.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(10436049006162)(788757137089);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(100000703101)(100105400095)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123558100)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560025)(6072148)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1130; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1130;
x-forefront-prvs: 03468CBA43
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(39860400002)(39410400002)(39400400002)(39450400003)(39850400002)(39840400002)(377454003)(24454002)(2906002)(122556002)(14454004)(5660300001)(66066001)(966005)(33656002)(189998001)(6506006)(305945005)(6916009)(82746002)(229853002)(83716003)(53546010)(575784001)(478600001)(86362001)(5003630100001)(2950100002)(6246003)(53936002)(50986999)(3660700001)(54356999)(76176999)(4326008)(38730400002)(110136004)(6486002)(77096006)(6512007)(9886003)(99286003)(6436002)(6306002)(7736002)(54906002)(25786009)(230783001)(6116002)(102836003)(3846002)(2900100001)(36756003)(3280700002)(81166006)(8676002)(8936002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1130; H:CY1PR0501MB1673.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <56E0D20F99C78E498B9ACE34E7FB0C5A@onevmw.onmicrosoft.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: vmware.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Jun 2017 05:02:15.8126 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: b39138ca-3cee-4b4a-a4d6-cd83d9dd62f0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0501MB1130
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/2K_we7qQjzOGO6UU0jzg0LrK7z8>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:02:21 -0000

Thanks Adam for the editorial and nits.  We'll updated to address. Lucien will send out detail.

--
Jacob



Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Adam Roach <@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwICaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=9ugCzbhur3I51kAqkWT0Pw&m=FCMkZeiWgN0iNPvQedG3FxtnLyS8QBOPkt5rBP_GmKM&s=T07RQYIFZSuVEz038A90IqBXtFZYgAd3hzJJxYr1OaM&e= 
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dbmwg-2Ddcbench-2Dterminology_&d=DwICaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=9ugCzbhur3I51kAqkWT0Pw&m=FCMkZeiWgN0iNPvQedG3FxtnLyS8QBOPkt5rBP_GmKM&s=XlC1lB7b_LeDDPpmYoSWSeQ3ry3MTiSbVFTh48uXh18&e= 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I am surprised to find normative statements in a terminology document. It might
> be appropriate -- if awkward -- to say things like "this term MUST mean x," but
> this document includes statements pertaining specifically to what "MUST be
> measured," which seems well beyond its purported scope. I would suggest either
> removing all such statements, or clearly expanding the scope of the document
> (including, and quite importantly, revising its title).
> 
> Editorial:
> - The first paragraph of Section 6.1 uses plural forms for B, kB, and MB, but
> singular for GB. Please make these consistent. - Typically, data units are
> capitalized per SI-system prefix rules, which would make "kB" the correct
> abbreviation for kilobytes, rather than "KB." - Something has gone well and
> truly bonkers with the references section formatting. - Please fix reference
> [1] so that it correctly points to draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology. This
> will ensure that it is updated to the correct RFC value at publication.
> 
> Please expand the following acronyms upon first use;
> see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_materials_abbrev.expansion.txt&d=DwICaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=9ugCzbhur3I51kAqkWT0Pw&m=FCMkZeiWgN0iNPvQedG3FxtnLyS8QBOPkt5rBP_GmKM&s=jPBkPkCSaxDZ5qrjYs77kcdBKvrXy-7ndq6o2iXm0n8&e=  for guidance.
> 
> - FPGA - Field-Programmable Gate Array
> - LLDP - Link Layer Discovery Protocol
> 
> Nits:
> 
>  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([1]), which it shouldn't.
>     Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in
>     question.
> 
>  == Missing Reference: 'RFC5481' is mentioned on line 285, but not defined
> 
>  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5841' is defined on line 732, but no explicit
>     reference was found in the text
> 
>  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2554 (ref. 'RFC2544') (Obsoleted by
>     RFC 4954)
> 
>