Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

The latest version resolves all of my comments, except for the comment that it was confusing to find normative procedures in a “terminology” draft. I understand the authors have chosen not to address that. It was a non-blocking comment, so I will not pursue it further.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Jun 21, 2017, at 11:59 PM, Lucien <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben!
> 
> Please see inline!
> 
> Also fixed the Alvaro comment as well.
> 
> Please let us know if you are okay with the change approve?
> 
> Thanks!
> Lucien
> 
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Thanks for the response. Comments inline:
> 
> Ben.
> 
> > On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Lucien <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > Thanks for the comment! Please find my answers inline, and please acknowledge back!
> >
> > Appreciate you taking the time to look at our work.
> >
> > Lucien
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Ben Campbell 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:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I find the naming of the draft fairly confusing. It goes way beyond
> > "terminology"; it makes a number of normative (using 2119 language) statements
> > about benchmarking procedures. I wonder why the sections about procedure did
> > not go into the methodology draft instead. In general, I don't think putting
> > normative language in an informational terminology draft is a good idea. (This
> > would have been a DISCUSS, except that I am aware the bmwg has decided to make
> > all its drafts informational and to still use 2119 language. For the record, I
> > think that policy falls down with this draft.)
> >
> > That's how we have decided it makes sense at BMWG to proceed with these two drafts. We have been hashing this out for 4+ years now and the current state is the consensus.  As author, I have no intention nor desire to change this
> 
> For the record, I think BMWG has adopted interpretations of both informational RFC and 2119 keywords that are at best unconventional, and at worst tortured. But I also recognize the precedent has been set, and don’t mean to hold this draft hostage to it. Thus it was a non-blocking comment which you can feel free to ignore :-)
> 
> 
> >
> > I agree with the comment from others that this does not seem to be specific to
> > datacenters.
> >
> > Great, so did we, this is why we already worked on addressing this by:
> >       •  calling out specifically that this specifically applies to data center switches (defining what those are today)
> >       • stating clearly that it can be applied to switches out of the data center, but that's not the specific scope of this
> 
> Works for me, thanks.
> 
> 
> >
> > - 2.2: Definitions of "store-and-forward" and "cut-through" when used in this
> > context would be helpful. The first may be obvious, but the best I can do with
> > "cut-through" is assume it means the opposite of "store-and-forward".
> >
> > Those are cleary defined in RFC 1242, which we reference. We don't want to duplicate definitions here.
> 
> Apologies, I missed the earlier citation to 1242, which was specifically in regard to these terms.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > - 6.2: After reading the definition of "Incast" several times, I'm still not
> > sure what it means or what is being measured.
> >
> > It's many to one type of network traffic patterns. Its very commonly found in cloud data centers implementing distributed storage/compute frameworks (big data for example).
> >
> 
> As written, it’s not clear to me if “Incast” means “one to many/many-to-many” communication in general, or the patterns of synchronization that result from that. The first paragraph seems to say the former but the second paragraph seems to say the latter.
> 
> 
> Clarified the paragraph and re-wrote it, take a look. incast is either many-to-one (simpler scenario), or many-to-many.  
>