Subject: [bmwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-issu-meth-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 12:41:15 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-issu-meth-01: 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-issu-meth/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Some discrepancies regarding MUST, SHOULD, MAY

One one side: The hardware configuration of the DUT SHOULD be identical
to the one expected to be or currently deployed in production
One the other side: the feature, protocol timing and other relevant
configurations should be matched to the expected production environment.

Note: potentially some other discrepancie with lower/upper case
MUST/SHOULD/MAY

- expand "NSR"

nits:
- point missing in the abstract
- section 1 title is wrongly formatted

---

From: "Fernando Calabria (fcalabri)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:59:59 +0000

Benoit, we will addressing your comments shortly, at the same time, we
are also discussing  among the authors on how to best address Kathleen¹s
observation, on this one we are still Œunsure¹ / debating   since as you
pointed out  all BMWG documents / tests are based on what  [RFC 6815]
defines  as an ITE (Isolated test Environment)

Rgds 

Fer