Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (with COMMENT)
Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com> Thu, 22 June 2017 12:56 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 346E11287A0; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:56:22 -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 CNLFWHO_E8BX; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22f.google.com (mail-yw0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (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 2B3DC1275C5; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 63so5562033ywr.0; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:56:20 -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=kY8tO2F5iqZksHab91yEqM/N94XfKYxqLeFbakvsTa0=; b=Al4vE/VXqkjlzQ0gRN4/MUQBvWC2vlu68wAi0ekMlPrj9cJa7edk3VfbGe9XUFEHkM Fs4rigvZyxA/kx6+ikB1cEJ6FusxZdRJj4R6NOiZwRMz2OfYC7Do2efpNKXRueI0bJj0 1O6BZSwSk+4czqTDRqt48e2VtcHs1IbxETJ6dUfFXxRdBRxkRaJmJvJkQ5Wp9Ym0oCgM IOh71pELSACxqi+fw41VCE7+HzysekI1q9Wce7f/Q8fgHSpPzDIoFjluzRZ2OdCY0rvX nOu/R107pML7TyxQb2HoHVb3J5j6nPI6j6L5TMdH7eN1NHnKPQEsKcqkE+8DHCe7sfsI VbSQ==
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=kY8tO2F5iqZksHab91yEqM/N94XfKYxqLeFbakvsTa0=; b=Q+HEdQSIdswWlNsWT5IpIpyO3VirpeRgfJ047k7iRrHtTTl3tJ5TJ5FN7qSEc1GtNg iikkvzLZDIpoSBmCZOlKJDowIuZYSvnuQ73lbncQlRLIf0pgDryYqjkHow7ZtN0Xxe++ 8CazCy9qFujHKKHlm6PQUwyNMO7M9cnLG/GjJK+90LSIXYEePuh68TOsqX1SQrB9rXbv GDJDOSUqOLsYcy0SQANRwaevmQytrHw6zwhR6HcJmM6+o/hDg1PISG2OzqQDqgt8Pehv jWHeVD9hnpnnx4i17i8c2LiGOGO/66qbNO9MAV9p8MRfqy3/3JfCSqdsgyH3jk5OIWvy de8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwIR8i4x/vnrDHjO+7fndkOEPLD2d9JokgJzqHqdA/rDReq3Z5P IPwYL6qifLE4kazUZwv2iR+Oq8fUbA==
X-Received: by 10.129.80.193 with SMTP id e184mr1739598ywb.44.1498136179355; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.145.2 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF25FE33B0@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <149809634844.30729.7905314498887048672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAArZqeUssxdEZrauVB=yn7i+8uBopmUvwyDu-jhHNOOvWqKM5w@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF25FE33B0@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
From: Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:56:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAArZqeVvdTsTxmZsR2nNt-c_-29ayX+R+4irGkju4uYsAad_uA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology@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="001a1147e4e2cbcf3d05528c022d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/js3OCmCBDmGeiVx59V7NdFBQ9ig>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach'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 12:56:22 -0000
Hi Al! Great catch thank you, I just fixed it and published -19 referencing to the proper RFC number! Thanks, Lucien On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:11 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com> wrote: > Hi Lucien, > > I caught a small mix-up in your late-night reply to Adam, below. > > Thanks for your massive editing efforts! > > Al > > > > *From:* Lucien [mailto:lucien.avramov@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 22, 2017 1:05 AM > *To:* Adam Roach > *Cc:* The IESG; draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology@ietf.org; Sarah > Banks; bmwg-chairs@ietf.org; bmwg@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: > (with COMMENT) > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > thanks for spending time to review and provide more comments to the list. > > I addressed both of your emails with the latest publication i just did. > > > > Please see inline for details: > > *…stuff deleted…* > > > == Missing Reference: 'RFC5481' is mentioned on line 285, but not defined > > > > Removed this RFC as we no longer reference it > > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC5841' is defined on line 732, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > > Removed this RFC as we no longer reference it > > > > *[ACM] * > > *This is another case of transposed RFC numbers.* > > *The draft references RFC 5481 in section 3.1 (terms) and this is correct!* > > *But the original reference was for “5841”, which wasn’t* > > *used in the text. You need to add a reference to* > > *RFC 5481 in the next update. * > > *THANKS!* > > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2554 (ref. 'RFC2544') (Obsoleted by > RFC 4954) > > I am sorry we use RFC 2544, not 2554 so we are good actually, its not > obsoleted at all. > > > > >
- [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bm… Adam Roach
- Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Jacob Rapp
- Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Lucien
- Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Lucien