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

Lucien <> Wed, 21 June 2017 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F96812943A; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92kPxHXVANZp; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17B1F1241FC; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v7so68256761ywc.2; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M+G9Ez8Erbh3xcGXm14cAkEK56Y2apq3A5ITHqnwyaM=; b=LsAYBtNa9D1TITeUGOph4YVC0qlKG6PoLtCK67ecC91mc/3rHWQbvkxUl8UYoXzzOJ tdMQAoDH3Znel7ohLDmwdn+xqr5MdxxOyDJsgGT58OleyfXMbo7nvQH6mXgY0xsGxofr UjvvdF0EalUeizfCkqKDIfHkvhepxIOTRszYKIVozh2Q5/zAApEdrKZ3CfzP6XSHGtZZ 1Hxb3/RYRhlau4SpC/UvIos9QMzTcyszK1FHHx2ctfR+dVhYzgNLMCmymCkRC1o2dx0T 8pH8C9lrEDDYHQEbCKBwh4Sd3SZ3QKWXcgKriwJeU0Ceb2/NMml+BnP/mvl2gRHKe//8 i8tA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M+G9Ez8Erbh3xcGXm14cAkEK56Y2apq3A5ITHqnwyaM=; b=uQHDzGhtfhjteXy8zEb47rIbq3gilY+FBKuXcuabKfQxDPAMoxkRKEyn2+XLhYHty6 +DxOrsG8zsUfZL7HrR7xfV2H2rmQ7pRHOL++sLLlrZvbMolZuOcy6uFt6a4UtQEyQUQl M+UjR1pm7JmAHcgh8WSbo8VEjoTBrkl10nSjumNPaXRdmDjWZNcxyKpJsbfDv3nButVf cnflUdM8Cl4KkM+QW1VnG/MrLz1PLgXqT0bzGYxMDNlqHeYLShLYk4YQ0COhoSdhwgHA YcnPio/V4yJ9ngtupyAXWjdrp6sORUvJ9Vrt+Vv1T/gdaq5mp/Z5SK0+eCQOVwgauAmW FvDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyYS2vnlCZ2dOI1r+xn/2u0kAPRsP4zfQDYP1/jQIFkbsLLfHxG ootI5kRf2oyPTwv76SaSd+NcVG8Smscg
X-Received: by with SMTP id x206mr27785498ywc.322.1498072950244; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Lucien <>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:22:29 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Ben Campbell <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, Sarah Banks <>,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1149378c0c105d05527d4ae3"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:22:33 -0000

Hi Ben!

Please find inline my comments!

Thanks for reviewing this draft!

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Ben Campbell <> 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> - 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.

> - 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

> - 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.