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

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:52:28 -0700

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
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.

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

Nits:

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

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC5481' is mentioned on line 285, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5841' is defined on line 732, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2554 (ref. 'RFC2544') (Obsoleted by
     RFC 4954)

---

From: Jacob Rapp <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:02:15 +0000

Thanks Adam for the editorial and nits.  We'll updated to address. Lucien will send out detail.

--
Jacob

Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Adam Roach <@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Please refer to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwICaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=9ugCzbhur3I51kAqkWT0Pw&m=FCMkZeiWgN0iNPvQedG3FxtnLyS8QBOPkt5rBP_GmKM&s=T07RQYIFZSuVEz038A90IqBXtFZYgAd3hzJJxYr1OaM&e= 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dbmwg-2Ddcbench-2Dterminology_&d=DwICaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=9ugCzbhur3I51kAqkWT0Pw&m=FCMkZeiWgN0iNPvQedG3FxtnLyS8QBOPkt5rBP_GmKM&s=XlC1lB7b_LeDDPpmYoSWSeQ3ry3MTiSbVFTh48uXh18&e= 
> 
> 
> 
> see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_materials_abbrev.expansion.txt&d=DwICaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=9ugCzbhur3I51kAqkWT0Pw&m=FCMkZeiWgN0iNPvQedG3FxtnLyS8QBOPkt5rBP_GmKM&s=jPBkPkCSaxDZ5qrjYs77kcdBKvrXy-7ndq6o2iXm0n8&e=  for guidance.
>

---

From: Lucien <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:04:59 -0700

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:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology/

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

> 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.

>  - LLDP - Link Layer Discovery Protocol
Thanks! Fixed!!

>      Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents

Thanks Fixed!

>   == Missing Reference: 'RFC5481' is mentioned on line 285, but not defined

Removed this RFC as we no longer reference it

>      reference was found in the text
Removed this RFC as we no longer reference it

> I am sorry we use RFC 2544, not 2554 so we are good actually, its not
obsoleted at all.

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:11:46 +0000

Hi Lucien,
I caught a small mix-up in your late-night reply to Adam, below.
Thanks for your massive editing efforts!
Al

From: Lucien [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 1:05 AM
To: Adam Roach
Cc: The IESG; [email-masked]; Sarah Banks; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17: (with COMMENT)

Hi Adam,

…stuff deleted…

[ACM]
This is another case of transposed RFC numbers.
The draft references RFC 5481 in section 3.1 (terms) and this is correct!
But the original reference was for “5841”, which wasn’t
used in the text.  You need to add a reference to
RFC 5481 in the next update.
THANKS!

  ** 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.

---

From: Lucien <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:56:18 -0700

Hi Al!

Great catch thank you, I just fixed it and published -19 referencing to the
proper RFC number!

Thanks,
Lucien

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:11 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> *From:* Lucien [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 22, 2017 1:05 AM
> *To:* Adam Roach
> *Cc:* The IESG; [email-masked]; Sarah
> Banks; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17:
> (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Hi Adam,
>
>
>
> *…stuff deleted…*
> *[ACM] *
> *This is another case of transposed RFC numbers.*
>
> *The draft references RFC 5481 in section 3.1 (terms) and this is correct!*
>
> *But the original reference was for “5841”, which wasn’t*
>
> *used in the text.  You need to add a reference to*
>
> *RFC 5481 in the next update. *
>
> *THANKS!*
>
>