[bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 21 June 2017 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0701612946E; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology@ietf.org, Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, sbanks@encrypted.net, bmwg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.55.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149807196602.15838.8048520689148705215.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:06:06 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/msRPP-t61Z50xYdfQPz_hfLoYSU>
Subject: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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 19:06:06 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: 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:


I find the naming of the draft fairly confusing. It goes way beyond
"terminology"; it makes a number of normative (using 2119 language) statements
about benchmarking procedures. I wonder why the sections about procedure did
not go into the methodology draft instead. In general, I don't think putting
normative language in an informational terminology draft is a good idea. (This
would have been a DISCUSS, except that I am aware the bmwg has decided to make
all its drafts informational and to still use 2119 language. For the record, I
think that policy falls down with this draft.)

I agree with the comment from others that this does not seem to be specific to

- 2.2: Definitions of "store-and-forward" and "cut-through" when used in this
context would be helpful. The first may be obvious, but the best I can do with
"cut-through" is assume it means the opposite of "store-and-forward".

- 6.2: After reading the definition of "Incast" several times, I'm still not
sure what it means or what is being measured.