Re: [bmwg] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-09: (with COMMENT)

Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net> Mon, 16 April 2018 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sbanks@encrypted.net>
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 7C1AC127869; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 0rfS2EA6pL1K; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aws.hosed.org (aws.hosed.org [50.16.104.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CE4F120721; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78951800EA; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:01:06 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aws.hosed.org
Received: from aws.hosed.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (aws.hosed.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V6dNEABk2BMt; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:01:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.61] (c-67-164-26-160.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.164.26.160]) by aws.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ACD53800E4; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 13:01:05 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Sarah B <sbanks@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <152389527577.19689.17380367672202619706.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:01:04 -0700
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term@ietf.org, ALFRED MORTON <acmorton@att.com>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CFF78737-E098-411E-974A-C500952AC25F@encrypted.net>
References: <152389527577.19689.17380367672202619706.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/ZXxGaU7vqr7-atYCWet1Bh6ph_A>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-09: (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: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:01:12 -0000

Hi Spencer,
	Thanks for your note; we've got it, and are working through the feedback now (particularly the measurement units comments).

Thanks
Sarah

> On Apr 16, 2018, at 9:14 AM, Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-09: 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-sdn-controller-benchmark-term/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A nit:
> 
>  The terms defined in this section are extensions to the terms
>   defined in [RFC7426] "Software-Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and
>   Architecture Terminology". This RFC should be referred before
>   attempting to make use of this document.
> 
> When this draft is published, "this RFC" won't be as clear as it is now (the
> phrase would also apply to the current document, which would be an RFC).
> Perhaps "That RFC", or even "RFC 7426" would be clearer.
> 
> There are a lot of measures that say
> 
> Measurement Units:
>   N/A
> 
> You might mean "not milliseconds, or some measure like that", but I found it
> confusing that something like "Trial Repetition" doesn't have measurement
> units. Saying something like "Number of trials", or even "Integer" would be
> clearer to me.
>