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

Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com> Thu, 22 June 2017 04:58 UTC

Return-Path: <lucien.avramov@gmail.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 6BD6B127B52; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 HHWZ13qVWxuK; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x231.google.com (mail-yw0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C31B1200C5; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 63so1903277ywr.0; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=f/TQY/6VgWQaI+Y7zeTFIZ3sWtMUaMUFBjH7DVPQ6Fk=; b=LC2jOR3V2Qxw/bFeN+6OY8683EG7kJWSQvfUZpJMHf0d3wYK9+7caiYDNNJJ7Zr+I4 NVD45EeJrsBXz0/Ykqj5j7OLH+5mw6Jxm6fhUlxcTj0mxXsk6tJEOL0bqijtliXuTw26 Y6IL3zA8DN7OxsbETGAR2k344a3cws/uNL2ZoEtqJG8wVqidV+xuTYUaUAiG+/HDoNiE 3c8iWMENcCcwr7GdnZwRJvU4LB0GWfftxrOTOi4KfvWaG13OhXv9NAHbMmGB27KBnpPR isDI+1IKQqJCGpHsFJv4emcZ2WqlaEBGGPdkl3oR6P72vJL0+OWC+Lo+DZeAO3GK3Tmn CAbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f/TQY/6VgWQaI+Y7zeTFIZ3sWtMUaMUFBjH7DVPQ6Fk=; b=PA6qfRLlGM4KezyjAtXqsOcnDGz78dZfVq3F6XxE/Pf6uM6JGlcBN2PcUIxznkAlBa 03xpIjLetcLB15CDM6PlDVZeZHE6tFXAASpMsPe3Y30qN5foEnDliWI7d5EMT45ttyc9 T1KdEfG1lUgBtIjBO7QhXUpEZmwgTfKjPA2+jCMTDbJYKBqFCQG9oOwxbIC7nEDEoW2m sm76f13TlRVgBb2+tdoNFCCEekutIjFoKPVaj4E/TsYXe5D+nErcmrMTNPyhNr9r7Srt ZpordJ39JYaJPxJkiyoSzYclpxFBcuHE1eoqghO8mDElcWB0V1SL6vDjFOgFNvGXEWwC mPCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxsGZ12Y/joLQrvbiLAXBpeFdpQnFubU/WLUhGUV3vdUb3uOW7Z 77hYCavvCiHZWm+RcAQIHkTMg3fyBQ==
X-Received: by 10.129.154.17 with SMTP id r17mr514738ywg.254.1498107484773; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.145.2 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAArZqeWN2suTLp5DUNsqEK5uCP7pa7-rtu7510c508jQMwYTeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <149790794238.10693.2532866777748124406.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALTEt=C9pzd4w9HjstXjzbj6awbdhTR66CF=H75O_39q0NK_iA@mail.gmail.com> <D78D2206-5A27-40E3-9E29-8C4A8D1ABD01@cisco.com> <CAArZqeWN2suTLp5DUNsqEK5uCP7pa7-rtu7510c508jQMwYTeg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:58:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAArZqeXLEnN0XQBvC2L5WrLx33NLg2nH9Jqs6PbPcycb9yRqhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Cc: Lucien Avramov <lucienav@google.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology@ietf.org>, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, "bmwg-chairs@ietf.org" <bmwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0b8eee7722810552855439"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/Uc7buXwduCe_Yjp8kvoBw7XgAwM>
Subject: Re: [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
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 04:58:07 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

I removed 1.2 per your suggestion. It's now all consistent.

Please confirm it's good for you?

Thanks for insisting on this change.

Lucien

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for clarifying Alvaro!! Much appreciate it.
>
> Got it, i'd like to keep 1.2 add-on as it makes it more clear for the
> reader to understand what I want to convey when I use this language in the
> doc, instead of having them go read another RFC.
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <
> aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/17, 3:17 AM, "Lucien Avramov" <lucienav@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Lucien:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>>
>> > In the context of the tests we describe in this publication, it's key
>> to keep
>>
>> > the words we have chosen…
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t have a problem with the words themselves – the point of my
>> DISCUSS is the fact that each word (“MUST”, for example) has two different
>> definitions.  Yes, they are close, but different.  In fact, they are so
>> close that I think you could take out the definitions in 1.2 and not lose
>> anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>
>