Subject: [bmwg] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:01:23 -0700

Adam Roach 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 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-methodology/

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

I agree with Alvaro's discuss -- you can't cite 2119 and then override it. It
may well be that what 2119 does not make sense for this document; if so, don't
cite it, and be clear up front that you're using a *different* set of meanings
for these specific terms.

I *think* I can suss out the nature of "east-west" versus "north-south" in the
introduction, but I'm really not sure. Can you please define these terms or
point to a document that does so?

Editorial:

- 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-terminology. This will ensure that it is updated to the
correct RFC value at publication.

Nits:

Please expand "SUT" on first use.

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

---

From: Lucien <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:06:58 -0700

Hi Adam,

Thanks for the review!! Fixed that one too with the last version :-)

Please see inline:

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

Thanks I fixed it, by taking care of Alvaro's discuss and i removed 1.2.

> point to a document that does so?

Thank you, I had documented in the other document but omitted this one,
it's fixed now!

> correct RFC value at publication.

fixed!

> Please expand "SUT" on first use.

Fixed!

>      Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents

Fixed!