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

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:08:49 -0700

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 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 support Alvaro's DISCUSS

- I agree with the questions about why this is specific to datacenters.

- Please expand DUT on first use.

---

From: Lucien <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:22:29 -0700

Hi Ben!

Please find inline my comments!

Thanks for reviewing this draft!

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

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.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 14:52:32 -0500

Thanks for the response; comments inline:

> On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:22 PM, Lucien <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben!
> 
> As author, the meaning of the words chosen (MUST..) are important to me and I don't agree with make it more loose. 

The issue is that the text (even in 16) has non-matching definitions for MUST, SHOULD, MAY, etc. It’s not a matter of “looseness”. The 2119 definitions are about interoperability. The definitions in 1.2 do not seem to be about interoperability.
> 	•  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
> 
> 

WFM

> 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.

Ah, I reviewed version 14, but it progressed to version 16 before I wrote up my notes and entered them into the tracker. I didn’t notice the new revisions until you mentioned them here. I agree DUT is properly expanded in 16.
\

---

From: Lucien <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:00:49 -0700

Hi Ben!

Just for the archive, answering on this thread also, please see inline and
ackowledge back:

Many thanks for the time spent on our drafts.

Lucien

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > As author, the meaning of the words chosen (MUST..) are important to me
> and I don't agree with make it more loose.
>
> The issue is that the text (even in 16) has non-matching definitions for
> MUST, SHOULD, MAY, etc. It’s not a matter of “looseness”. The 2119
> definitions are about interoperability. The definitions in 1.2 do not seem
> to be about interoperability.
> >
>

Fixed by removing this section 1.2 part.

> >       •  calling out specifically that this specifically applies to data
> >       • stating clearly that it can be applied to switches out of the
> data center, but that's not the specific scope of this
> >
> >
>
> WFM
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Ah, I reviewed version 14, but it progressed to version 16 before I wrote
> up my notes and entered them into the tracker. I didn’t notice the new
> revisions until you mentioned them here. I agree DUT is properly expanded
> in 16.
> \

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:57:46 -0500

Hi,

Version 18 resolves my comments.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Jun 22, 2017, at 12:00 AM, Lucien <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben!
> 
> Just for the archive, answering on this thread also, please see inline and ackowledge back:
>