IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Thu, 22 June 2017 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.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 3BCE5128BA2; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PxysHnCr5mC0; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4B8F126D45; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v5MC5nB7030931; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 08:12:11 -0400
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2b82mjp577-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 08:12:11 -0400
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5MCCAd9115301; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 07:12:10 -0500
Received: from dalint03.pst.cso.att.com (dalint03.pst.cso.att.com [135.31.133.161]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5MCC2TF115268 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 07:12:03 -0500
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (clpi183.sldc.sbc.com [135.41.1.46]) by dalint03.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:11:58 GMT
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5MCBwXV032571; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 07:11:58 -0500
Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (mail-azure.research.att.com [135.207.255.18]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5MCBmal031567; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 07:11:48 -0500
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njmtcas2.research.att.com [135.207.255.47]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33AE5E05FF; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 08:11:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njmtcas2.research.att.com ([fe80::d550:ec84:f872:cad9%15]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 08:11:47 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>, 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: AQHS6xUgHssWT8+KCUWtOTUYp7fMs6IwyZbg
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:11:46 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF25FE33B0@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <149809634844.30729.7905314498887048672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAArZqeUssxdEZrauVB=yn7i+8uBopmUvwyDu-jhHNOOvWqKM5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAArZqeUssxdEZrauVB=yn7i+8uBopmUvwyDu-jhHNOOvWqKM5w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [73.178.187.36]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF25FE33B0njmtexg5researc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-06-22_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706220209
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/DORC9sZNrpOakjmzBG-HnAotrbw>
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 12:12:18 -0000

Hi Lucien,
I caught a small mix-up in your late-night reply to Adam, below.
Thanks for your massive editing efforts!
Al

From: Lucien [mailto:lucien.avramov@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 1:05 AM
To: Adam Roach
Cc: The IESG; draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology@ietf.org; Sarah Banks; bmwg-chairs@ietf.org; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (with COMMENT)

Hi Adam,

thanks for spending time to review and provide more comments to the list.
I addressed both of your emails with the latest publication i just did.

Please see inline for details:
…stuff deleted…

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC5481' is mentioned on line 285, but not defined

Removed this RFC as we no longer reference it

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5841' is defined on line 732, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
Removed this RFC as we no longer reference it

[ACM]
This is another case of transposed RFC numbers.
The draft references RFC 5481 in section 3.1 (terms) and this is correct!
But the original reference was for “5841”, which wasn’t
used in the text.  You need to add a reference to
RFC 5481 in the next update.
THANKS!

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2554 (ref. 'RFC2544') (Obsoleted by
     RFC 4954)
I am sorry we use RFC 2544, not 2554 so we are good actually, its not obsoleted at all.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email