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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 22 June 2017 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 8833212949D; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 ggPUYq37Vt2G; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 8D60C126C83; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.63] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v5MLu50h007143 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:56:06 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAArZqeUL7Zoc72SR5CRDxm005Ys=d3xSnAHLPYPHX6N1wJMcww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:56:05 -0500
Cc: bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1B8139B5-B630-4197-B4EF-9BE3993085FA@nostrum.com>
References: <149807196602.15838.8048520689148705215.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAArZqeX2_1XJhuqhMdHYRELrERgMzu+AV9zQAFLQUdpMbh7PcA@mail.gmail.com> <CA7A6183-2EEA-475F-B33B-9B77F075D5FD@nostrum.com> <CAArZqeUL7Zoc72SR5CRDxm005Ys=d3xSnAHLPYPHX6N1wJMcww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/dl5q-TzHHVfe1SWte6Vz7HE_T_g>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (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 21:56:15 -0000

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 <lucien.avramov@gmail.com> 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 <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the response. Comments inline:
> 
> Ben.
> 
> > On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com> 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 <ben@nostrum.com> 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.  
>