Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: (with COMMENT)

Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescul@gmail.com> Thu, 08 June 2017 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <marius.georgescul@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 545DB129B41; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 05:32:05 -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 NB9JXwJlgJjt; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 05:32:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x241.google.com (mail-wm0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::241]) (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 E02A91287A7; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 05:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x241.google.com with SMTP id 70so7078456wme.1; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 05:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=LlXMTW4ixyfW9ljkmZ1Ihn2SSS7dM+weYLufWU4JalQ=; b=D2fF32ajUvbBCIJ6ZRv2qE6OQp64+y7FeAIJP0Bi9MeIcS7Gsy1+vQ9W7lycfSi70b 49zYo8mo9sCs3nedpqytv+0x7NvpmrN+jzSmOB6l4tvvxKKnnEewDGgnmWAtId4wkXLV egEItfFwve3E8RQqlr0g5MrG1LOB9VGSGpl8wsse4fOZBzEttS4q32nrp6vujywwDt80 EzGDbeWRkD7N/5Vm/8EKGhYQBUcoa3wKK/85QgG8H8FiasrvwSzDpdo7c0XMR64Mf1se XyKIyn+UjPYmRRFuO0MQqczZkcXLUVqERV/lDHGpBTmNmOofcUtJQAUWxhgQvWcLlrPJ RsGg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=LlXMTW4ixyfW9ljkmZ1Ihn2SSS7dM+weYLufWU4JalQ=; b=TqsbZK2P34ddO6QOhJr2eZ+/Qyl9km5QfS0+AagsfWWcXVST1GImQlsRokWUr//HkM CV2NONGPKtaw4Gmw0iuZva36U0EKdUjgG3fw8cAY84/UkwNEei5e6i7gJyWR1qVKsiOP 8c++3KMZHcfdol75JC264iBs3BqnaOyxDzWqqWOxlj7EDhS3gSaGZvxflFj2GHRNo9K7 Aaf+18oU5w2mciKerdyNo7SSf3wA4I2GKoDL/VnRM7oUtOxUDLAjIWbMsdL+cvv9RkEd kJ1KX9VfXd7gKPLWSqtdaDWwwmqtKEHgtSBxAvodmvMRa29z06emw+XdyQ1h7VCIJsZY 94MQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDhvvWynHCbd19Dh66mr/vVWNJZENNTVlzav95fN2J0FjFthEC/ 6CE6Utl92Wbdvw==
X-Received: by 10.28.66.2 with SMTP id p2mr3547250wma.20.1496925121399; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 05:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.172.5.198] ([212.54.122.61]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i3sm5808437wmb.13.2017.06.08.05.31.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Jun 2017 05:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescul@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <0E4C7D6C-0727-48F3-8C1B-F42D54C8A1C9@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1B28803D-3CC4-4704-A105-5075CF090869"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:31:58 +0300
In-Reply-To: <F5108B2C-9699-45D5-B9D3-53B96778D687@rcs-rds.ro>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, Alfred C Morton <acmorton@att.com>
To: ben@nostrum.com
References: <F5108B2C-9699-45D5-B9D3-53B96778D687@rcs-rds.ro>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/fGFCXTMi3ZZ5iK2T0kxcVb7Twvo>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: (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, 08 Jun 2017 12:32:05 -0000

Hello Ben,

Thank you for your review.
Many of the BMWG RFCs I've read use 2119 keywords for the reporting format.
In our understanding, the reason is that the output report of a tester is supposed to follow the format recommendations. 

Best regards,
Marius
> On Jun 8, 2017, at 3:14 PM, Marius Georgescu <marius.georgescu@rcs-rds.ro> wrote:
> 
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: 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 <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-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking/>
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -7.2, Reporting Format: Is it conventional to use 2119 keywords to describe
> report formatting? (Or is this paragraph really about content, rather than
> format?)
> 
> (Comment repeats for other "format" related paragraphs.)
>