Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: (with COMMENT)
Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com> Thu, 22 June 2017 05:07 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 F0251126FDC; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:07:01 -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 L78lJKHMYOsZ; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (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 93D80127A90; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 63so1952650ywr.0; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:06:59 -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=oGjx5zpwPx6Jtel9QAPLeB796VLy2YEpX0ZJ5shvOCI=; b=kXOXmU5vk8tjo5rxcAi5Bce1QQm85ZATsL+b8ZUdxAtmUE37/fbf1WDGqSwrx1rlhS 6aGsnzkuMPZ6X5Mew9DKxAstq4kAWwLEHfEIVYWqP2I81K/KBz1LwXy5jlarINwvW+J5 8DlbvFGuwJinURv+Gt2M6veBACcAAmo58Dj7C8bNzYaKCHieBoTiZzIRy8mHsorpQHfR QqnQ6DQc2UjkFdslKyGvMspM1CvO3t54Pz6pbpL9ffM/suZXdUoKoB78Qftric3JVgiQ z3T8id46GkT7GOOvWqquUxMPw16YClSEGgCMEJp9sn7i9sDQr5JBnUMs0e4Ka97/v4eM Fn6w==
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=oGjx5zpwPx6Jtel9QAPLeB796VLy2YEpX0ZJ5shvOCI=; b=M5mjr2acAHyUd1YkL2vWD/HwN6h7CKk3LrE+1LzTWL2arUhRglQ/DzEPpgDuy5JAKC fMUgsfMV4VI2W5fGrhMKIqE85jAivJcpZ51EywhFLcXjXLwDoUkUdxnn0UoTCKkI4KH+ VmeMjsgRdp28D7jYrX+RGnDL+lO4JFJxWwOPHh27TEU6z4GZlHVpUbFk6ZR/Z2wP4qP+ NZSgw1GsOVDxqq95xC2omQjtNPB91iEtnFs0DXZecICLSHvmSpdNqQnqSiE/ZURA84E+ Uqdtosdi4l6SyGxNIwrlRToIpwbIJ4M7hnDRhF85BzrK6l424Q5mUgLRFIK5XGxdkdoh 32JA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwznsCYsKoemwWrTklONKbAhOMECuNMnNH2maXeTbaDWQIicu/y ueHJkFDKCMvpYiCdkItS0gs0daAbyQ==
X-Received: by 10.129.154.17 with SMTP id r17mr535289ywg.254.1498108018878; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.145.2 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <149810048336.30434.8858369887731037073.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <149810048336.30434.8858369887731037073.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:06:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAArZqeXGUHiKsxs21s96ktEJhAAetZUBy5Qem+a3MyQ7x6jPpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology@ietf.org, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0b8eee4cf3e305528574c3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/aYm3aTEE0zDxD1dP1lEr_AdkZbU>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: (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 05:07:02 -0000
Hi Adam, Thanks for the review!! Fixed that one too with the last version :-) Please see inline: On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > Adam Roach 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 agree with Alvaro's discuss -- you can't cite 2119 and then override it. > It > may well be that what 2119 does not make sense for this document; if so, > don't > cite it, and be clear up front that you're using a *different* set of > meanings > for these specific terms. > Thanks I fixed it, by taking care of Alvaro's discuss and i removed 1.2. > > I *think* I can suss out the nature of "east-west" versus "north-south" in > the > introduction, but I'm really not sure. Can you please define these terms or > point to a document that does so? > Thank you, I had documented in the other document but omitted this one, it's fixed now! > > Editorial: > > - Something has gone well and truly bonkers with the references section > formatting. > > - Please fix reference [1] so that it correctly points to > draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology. This will ensure that it is updated > to the > correct RFC value at publication. > fixed! > > Nits: > > Please expand "SUT" on first use. > Fixed! > > ** The abstract seems to contain references ([1]), which it shouldn't. > Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents > in > question. > Fixed!