[bmwg] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com> Mon, 19 June 2017 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7DE1201F8; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology@ietf.org, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.55.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149790794238.10693.2532866777748124406.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:32:22 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/TnOmDkK_nKmicmM7YKBPydSPaAA>
Subject: [bmwg] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:32:22 -0000

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-12: Discuss

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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This document contains both the RFC2119 boilerplate and specific definitions
for MUST, SHOULD/RECOMMENDED and MAY. Even though the additional definitions
are close enough to RFC2119, I think that one of them should be taken off to
avoid any type of confusion.

Note that the (new) definitions in this document are focused around "metrics",
which would not apply to text such as (from 2.2) "A traffic generator SHOULD be
connected to all ports on the DUT. Two tests MUST be conducted...".


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Mirja's DISCUSS.  The authors recognize that the applicability of the
tests described may go beyond the DC, so it should be reflected appropriately
(starting with the title of the document).  From the Abstract:

   The purpose of this informational document is to establish test and
   evaluation methodology and measurement techniques for physical
   network equipment in the data center. Many of these terms and methods
   may be applicable beyond this publication's scope as the technologies
   originally applied in the data center are deployed elsewhere.