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

Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com> Thu, 22 June 2017 05:00 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 B5A15127A90; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:00:53 -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 4OSluqPb56np; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22e.google.com (mail-yw0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22e]) (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 A5B5F1200CF; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id v7so1893690ywc.2; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:00:51 -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=uxV0PduxBn9rHFqieHImhmynPaTLyP6oKCkB23UTpuQ=; b=D9D3czyEKcCFTxZFUbVhTiGKy+XSSmvkVXl12ywv1ZMaRdqPho0s2YiwvlmoSyMj6P 0SK91FEiJNvQ+/2IbWCQVr9ooVCVc03MAiMm6dhx3Un9yLfbApoBIYx91WUkfzm/gDt5 10lONPnZNdAJ3AwOZ5VrJGZyRoOYmOO4XvvF//vE5K5GXYcd93ndXR1dSNXY2NewqUyN OEh6qpZDWb4g6GY4nfFgtB1ZXvh4MCDhTR46NkVaCv+oHvdInZVK4JVKL+kVjtvWYYzn v7ANeVnUn2s34Wvh5ydn71x4TKfN4SI5jbIH3zOcxh04ZOFpTtQthAn7HFtZmu3hnLGi Wq/A==
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=uxV0PduxBn9rHFqieHImhmynPaTLyP6oKCkB23UTpuQ=; b=SKNIqQMuL/zh7yG6qVWpkJyyp4fFysGhKTqCd/KppBC+S9LLhaju2pjSjHfaAaaWah uT9zaBLVtooYtH17npcGUfL9wvSPv+cAW3/wpMnACRwSjqrEyTG4lRqMdqjOD7/2f2qn OWSi7K8JlFK9qSzgZt0ptlH3nD+Urm/kjceB1RGtdLDpgfLxlIFmrDte7KGKOw9zQ2Rw t+lgt0caMreKkC9s8jpiFQYAk55WgG5ZwoJzA78IREKvu+VFIw+V/tjb3R/3LwAFzsNj BsEt0M30IjREKvTfBaJ/5oijgU11y7ZKAm0vsvcvUY48+BCny98XrLdRyY6gJb2zuHpM btyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOx74cPt11M+F4WNTZLEyhem4YL2WFQrymPN7ZSGHQi9iR3fPYRK ksxKgXMmcca1kRvb4M7y4ZVmI19vjQ==
X-Received: by 10.129.161.15 with SMTP id y15mr489054ywg.116.1498107649412; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.145.2 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9D1D7116-BBE9-4BCF-A82C-6D6752C373AA@nostrum.com>
References: <149807212936.15488.7309772374304994572.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAArZqeV_LQ_SSvQif652aZfPrgF2sjwPKxn4uD8vC-bTc40Z0g@mail.gmail.com> <9D1D7116-BBE9-4BCF-A82C-6D6752C373AA@nostrum.com>
From: Lucien <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:00:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAArZqeVYYuGiSXe2Zt3a4mA=RWOPgPOHXh+fxRvTiHSLMsu+Hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
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-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114f087a4756070552855e95"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/kr8LZWkmdbKKUjwqbk8b7YWGxSY>
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: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:00:54 -0000

Hi Ben!

Just for the archive, answering on this thread also, please see inline and
ackowledge back:

Many thanks for the time spent on our drafts.

Lucien

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >
>

Fixed by removing this section 1.2 part.


> >
> > - 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.
> \