Re: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (with COMMENT)

[Lucien <[e-mail]>]

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:



On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Adam Roach 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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am surprised to find normative statements in a terminology document. It
> might
> be appropriate -- if awkward -- to say things like "this term MUST mean
> x," but
> this document includes statements pertaining specifically to what "MUST be
> measured," which seems well beyond its purported scope. I would suggest
> either
> removing all such statements, or clearly expanding the scope of the
> document
> (including, and quite importantly, revising its title).
>
> Editorial:
> - The first paragraph of Section 6.1 uses plural forms for B, kB, and MB,
> but
> singular for GB. Please make these consistent. - Typically, data units are
>

many thanks, made it consistent with singular as per the prefix rules


> capitalized per SI-system prefix rules, which would make "kB" the correct
> abbreviation for kilobytes, rather than "KB." - Something has gone well and
> truly bonkers with the references section formatting. - Please fix
> reference
> [1] so that it correctly points to draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology.
> This
> will ensure that it is updated to the correct RFC value at publication.
>
>
I will disagree a bit here. in the context of 1024 bytes, its very common
and accepted to use KB (with capital K instead of kB) This is the case in
many networking publication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte

"The binary representation of 1024 bytes typically uses the symbol KB
(uppercase *K*). The *B* is often omitted in informal use. For example, a
processor with 65,536 bytes of cache might be said to have "64K" of cache."

I want to keep KB, to be consistent with the other capital letters for my
publication.



> Please expand the following acronyms upon first use;
> see https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt for
> guidance.
>
>  - FPGA - Field-Programmable Gate Array
>  - LLDP - Link Layer Discovery Protocol
>
>
Thanks! Fixed!!


> Nits:
>
>   ** The abstract seems to contain references ([1]), which it shouldn't.
>      Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents
> in
>      question.
>

Thanks Fixed!

>
>   == 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

>
>   ** 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.