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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 22 June 2017 01:52 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 8455A1241FC; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology@ietf.org, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, sbanks@encrypted.net, bmwg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.55.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149809634844.30729.7905314498887048672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:52:28 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/alfyNyb5Gi5t4txnXxMHySHekzw>
Subject: [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
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 01:52:28 -0000

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: 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:


I am surprised to find normative statements in a terminology document. It might
be appropriate -- if awkward -- to say things like "this term MUST mean x," but
this document includes statements pertaining specifically to what "MUST be
measured," which seems well beyond its purported scope. I would suggest either
removing all such statements, or clearly expanding the scope of the document
(including, and quite importantly, revising its title).

- The first paragraph of Section 6.1 uses plural forms for B, kB, and MB, but
singular for GB. Please make these consistent. - Typically, data units are
capitalized per SI-system prefix rules, which would make "kB" the correct
abbreviation for kilobytes, rather than "KB." - 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-methodology. This
will ensure that it is updated to the correct RFC value at publication.

Please expand the following acronyms upon first use;
see https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt for guidance.

 - FPGA - Field-Programmable Gate Array
 - LLDP - Link Layer Discovery Protocol


  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([1]), which it shouldn't.
     Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in

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

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5841' is defined on line 732, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2554 (ref. 'RFC2544') (Obsoleted by
     RFC 4954)