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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the response; comments inline:


> On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:22 PM, Lucien <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben!
> 
> Please find inline my comments!
> 
> Thanks for reviewing this draft!
> 
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> 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.
\