Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 21 June 2017 19:52 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 3A7D5126C89; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 vxIUwJnFPgsj; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:52:37 -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 5CB0D1252BA; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:52:37 -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 v5LJqWY8053428 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:52:33 -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: <CAArZqeV_LQ_SSvQif652aZfPrgF2sjwPKxn4uD8vC-bTc40Z0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:52:32 -0500
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology@ietf.org, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9D1D7116-BBE9-4BCF-A82C-6D6752C373AA@nostrum.com>
References: <149807212936.15488.7309772374304994572.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAArZqeV_LQ_SSvQif652aZfPrgF2sjwPKxn4uD8vC-bTc40Z0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/iU6E-k-kFWHbHKXeb3_92g-4m_E>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: (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: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:52:39 -0000

Thanks for the response; comments inline:


> On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:22 PM, Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben!
> 
> Please find inline my comments!
> 
> Thanks for reviewing this draft!
> 
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: 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-methodology/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> - I support Alvaro's DISCUSS
> 
> As author, the meaning of the words chosen (MUST..) are important to me and I don't agree with make it more loose. 

The issue is that the text (even in 16) has non-matching definitions for MUST, SHOULD, MAY, etc. It’s not a matter of “looseness”. The 2119 definitions are about interoperability. The definitions in 1.2 do not seem to be about interoperability.
>  
> 
> - I agree with the questions about why this is specific to datacenters.
> 
> Since this comment was on your other draft review, same answer applies here:
> 
> 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
> 
> 

WFM

> 
> - Please expand DUT on first use.
> 
> Thanks, this was expanded already on first use in the introduction of -16 document (the Device Under Test (DUT)). I just doubled checked. Please let me know if I have missed anything, and I will fix it right away.

Ah, I reviewed version 14, but it progressed to version 16 before I wrote up my notes and entered them into the tracker. I didn’t notice the new revisions until you mentioned them here. I agree DUT is properly expanded in 16.
\