IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com> Tue, 20 June 2017 16:41 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 2F3FF131BCC; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:41:19 -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 0oZ5RSaCemuv; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com (mail-yw0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]) (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 43F0A12944A; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id l75so54575853ywc.3; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:40:51 -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=xlpbpPjTkdjlP61TQA/i9cFm63AQjZkVFlQo76FSjcE=; b=Nj0ScyR5ay3TUGoEK3aLJ5C4AQe1hcRFCP9RClzW3o3/h5n5jBQ3Fu+iwCdOkyawnD lOIEqMaIQr5PrL0gK80ESoxeuZOr2ca4qWf7RzjyXNfGqXl39A85fMVhXgVRO3rp2G1X JgXYmJGg07dTkiDiF2lkv+LdCKR5rTHqoO2WkgcWC6ncnW7EBFXZgeD7JKFvdR2Nbgu8 V7Pb20nAgcQQPHpFr1YAeOoLdWrpNMwOdAR052s7r7DkZ4ncqISejO4d31U/rpe60QDN EI3J8CunlFcMNmqGc3Ckctf43Kvf9dI8Y4azEqfHZL8vtAjM+lXczMvCmvXHqd8zKc8A QoOg==
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=xlpbpPjTkdjlP61TQA/i9cFm63AQjZkVFlQo76FSjcE=; b=ALvNb9kN3KTPrdQvM7SWlTz94MFOrCrPUWKNkNNZUksUkz3wHqBXd9wWtcwVAxN2nh AjhRxz+s10c9+cFgqinvmwxSzoRUrMlTQyH4nUbizfIWb39lbKp15qgt4myDqv0RniNW 9P3CRdzpCKIzd1rKyVBUuHE6eWb9fW4oEe6jMCUGd938RBNlopcvf1MzkVrzAYa21bfL ajFrTB27IG3LSpOc3vCf3mM9z6hSboG+IU2pmqM/eC1+cPJoSEKhY+SHt260VMotUaJ1 w0BpYo8hnCV7swEFHprNMCCiD1G6Omy1VSAGQaEyLpox8NTYwNM3ziDmz+2+1ErDtoep t++g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOw5m96wk/DFufsIcpP/33Q54uyPNs/Y1o4CwRYLVc/06Y31PTaG KAsP2vlStraTCUYFqI+0nAnjuxa+Aw==
X-Received: by 10.13.232.136 with SMTP id r130mr1925080ywe.161.1497976850365; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.145.2 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D78D2206-5A27-40E3-9E29-8C4A8D1ABD01@cisco.com>
References: <149790794238.10693.2532866777748124406.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALTEt=C9pzd4w9HjstXjzbj6awbdhTR66CF=H75O_39q0NK_iA@mail.gmail.com> <D78D2206-5A27-40E3-9E29-8C4A8D1ABD01@cisco.com>
From: Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:40:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAArZqeWN2suTLp5DUNsqEK5uCP7pa7-rtu7510c508jQMwYTeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Cc: Lucien Avramov <lucienav@google.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology@ietf.org>, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, "bmwg-chairs@ietf.org" <bmwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c08712c0c44b7055266eac6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/fF67Rpczuk4Ukt3jAhMjdpVvSPs>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:05:14 -0700
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-12: (with DISCUSS and 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: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:43:09 -0000

Thanks for clarifying Alvaro!! Much appreciate it.

Got it, i'd like to keep 1.2 add-on as it makes it more clear for the
reader to understand what I want to convey when I use this language in the
doc, instead of having them go read another RFC.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com>
wrote:

> On 6/20/17, 3:17 AM, "Lucien Avramov" <lucienav@google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Lucien:
>
>
>
> Hi!
>
>
>
> > In the context of the tests we describe in this publication, it's key to
> keep
>
> > the words we have chosen…
>
>
>
> I don’t have a problem with the words themselves – the point of my DISCUSS
> is the fact that each word (“MUST”, for example) has two different
> definitions.  Yes, they are close, but different.  In fact, they are so
> close that I think you could take out the definitions in 1.2 and not lose
> anything.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Alvaro.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email