Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Version 18 resolves my comments.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Jun 22, 2017, at 12:00 AM, Lucien <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben!
> 
> Just for the archive, answering on this thread also, please see inline and ackowledge back:
> 
> Many thanks for the time spent on our drafts.
> 
> Lucien
> 
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Thanks for the response; comments inline:
> 
> 
> > On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:22 PM, Lucien <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ben!
> >
> > Please find inline my comments!
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing this draft!
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > - I support Alvaro's DISCUSS
> >
> > As author, the meaning of the words chosen (MUST..) are important to me and I don't agree with make it more loose.
> 
> The issue is that the text (even in 16) has non-matching definitions for MUST, SHOULD, MAY, etc. It’s not a matter of “looseness”. The 2119 definitions are about interoperability. The definitions in 1.2 do not seem to be about interoperability.
> >
> 
> Fixed by removing this section 1.2 part. 
>  
> >
> > - I agree with the questions about why this is specific to datacenters.
> >
> > Since this comment was on your other draft review, same answer applies here:
> >
> > Great, so did we, this is why we already worked on addressing this by:
> >       •  calling out specifically that this specifically applies to data center switches (defining what those are today)
> >       • stating clearly that it can be applied to switches out of the data center, but that's not the specific scope of this
> >
> >
> 
> WFM
> 
> >
> > - Please expand DUT on first use.
> >
> > Thanks, this was expanded already on first use in the introduction of -16 document (the Device Under Test (DUT)). I just doubled checked. Please let me know if I have missed anything, and I will fix it right away.
> 
> Ah, I reviewed version 14, but it progressed to version 16 before I wrote up my notes and entered them into the tracker. I didn’t notice the new revisions until you mentioned them here. I agree DUT is properly expanded in 16.
> \