Subject: [bmwg] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 07:03:53 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-10: 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 didn't put in a discuss because it’s not worth holding up the document as the
content seems fine, BUT I really don't see why this terminology is specified
FOR data centers ONLY. All terminology seem to be applicable in general and as
such this seems to be an extension of RFC1242. Even incast, which is actually a
data center term, is so generally defined that one could use it also in a
different context as well. Further latency is defined in both documents, where
this drafts mentions RFC1242 and mainly extends the description there. That's
in general fine, but I probably would recommend to simply change the title,
remove the work data center there, and make this document update RFC 1242.