Skip to main content

Data Center Benchmarking Terminology
RFC 8238

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-08-30
19 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8238, changed abstract to 'The purposes of this informational document are to establish definitions and …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8238, changed abstract to 'The purposes of this informational document are to establish definitions and describe measurement techniques for data center benchmarking, as well as to introduce new terminology applicable to performance evaluations of data center network equipment.  This document establishes the important concepts for benchmarking network switches and routers in the data center and is a prerequisite for the test methodology document (RFC 8239).  Many of these terms and methods may be applicable to network equipment beyond the scope of this document as the technologies originally applied in the data center are deployed elsewhere.', changed pages to 20, changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-08-30, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2017-08-30
19 (System) RFC published
2017-08-24
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8238">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2017-08-09
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8238">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2017-08-01
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2017-08-01
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from AUTH
2017-07-27
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2017-07-06
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2017-06-26
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2017-06-26
19 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-06-26
19 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-06-26
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2017-06-26
19 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2017-06-26
19 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2017-06-26
19 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-06-26
19 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2017-06-26
19 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2017-06-24
19 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2017-06-22
19 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2017-06-22
19 Michelle Cotton IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2017-06-22
19 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-19.txt
2017-06-22
19 (System) New version approved
2017-06-22
19 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucien Avramov <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>, " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>
2017-06-22
19 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-06-21
18 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2017-06-21
18 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-18.txt
2017-06-21
18 (System) New version approved
2017-06-21
18 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucien Avramov <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>, " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>
2017-06-21
18 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-06-21
17 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2017-06-21
17 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-06-21
17 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
I am surprised to find normative statements in a terminology document. It might be appropriate -- if awkward -- to say things like …
[Ballot 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)
2017-06-21
17 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adam Roach has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2017-06-21
17 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
Nits:

  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([1]), which it shouldn't.
    Please replace those with straight textual mentions of …
[Ballot comment]
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)
2017-06-21
17 Adam Roach Ballot comment text updated for Adam Roach
2017-06-21
17 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2017-06-21
17 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
I find the naming of the draft fairly confusing. It goes way beyond "terminology"; it makes a number of normative (using 2119 language) …
[Ballot comment]
I find the naming of the draft fairly confusing. It goes way beyond "terminology"; it makes a number of normative (using 2119 language) statements about benchmarking procedures. I wonder why the sections about procedure did not go into the methodology draft instead. In general, I don't think putting normative language in an informational terminology draft is a good idea. (This would have been a DISCUSS, except that I am aware the bmwg has decided to make all its drafts informational and to still use 2119 language. For the record, I think that policy falls down with this draft.)

I agree with the comment from others that this does not seem to be specific to datacenters.

- 2.2: Definitions of "store-and-forward" and "cut-through" when used in this context would be helpful. The first may be obvious, but the best I can do with "cut-through" is assume it means the opposite of "store-and-forward".

- 6.2: After reading the definition of "Incast" several times, I'm still not sure what it means or what is being measured.
2017-06-21
17 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-06-21
17 Suresh Krishnan Ballot comment text updated for Suresh Krishnan
2017-06-21
17 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
Not sure if the WG discussed this, but it would have been interesting to have something energy efficiency related metrics (in both the …
[Ballot comment]
Not sure if the WG discussed this, but it would have been interesting to have something energy efficiency related metrics (in both the terminology and the methodology documents).
2017-06-21
17 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-06-21
17 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-06-21
17 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-17.txt
2017-06-21
17 (System) New version approved
2017-06-21
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucien Avramov <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>, " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>
2017-06-21
17 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-06-21
16 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2017-06-21
16 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-06-21
16 Tim Chown Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tim Chown. Sent review to list.
2017-06-20
16 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2017-06-20
16 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-16.txt
2017-06-20
16 (System) New version approved
2017-06-20
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucien Avramov <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>, " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>
2017-06-20
16 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-06-20
15 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-15.txt
2017-06-20
15 (System) New version approved
2017-06-20
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Lucien Avramov <lucien.avramov@gmail.com>, " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>
2017-06-20
15 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-06-20
14 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
(I'm making the same comment on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology and draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology)

I'm looking at the ballot positions on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology and draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology that assert these …
[Ballot comment]
(I'm making the same comment on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology and draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology)

I'm looking at the ballot positions on draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology and draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology that assert these documents aren't specific to "data centers". That wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not seeing a definition of "data center" in either document - did I miss it?

I suspect that the authors have specific technical characteristics in mind, that happen to map onto what data centers look like today, but may not in the future ("RFCs last forever"). Is it possible to tease those characteristics out?

(Full disclosure: my first working group in the IETF could have been called "TCP over cellular links", but it turned out that when we said "cellular links", we meant "low-speed links with high loss rates and asymmetric bandwidth". "Cellular links" in the late 1990s didn't have the same characteristics that "cellular links" have in 2017, but there are other link types with those characteristics, so the documents ended up being useful in places like CORE. I'm not suggesting anything like a restructure of the document(s), only that they be clear about how future readers would know whether they should be reading them in 2027)
2017-06-20
14 Spencer Dawkins Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins
2017-06-20
14 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-06-20
14 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-14.txt
2017-06-20
14 (System) New version approved
2017-06-20
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>, Lucien Avramov <lucienav@google.com>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org
2017-06-20
14 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-06-20
13 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-06-19
13 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Mirja.  Given that the text (in the Abstract) already recognize the broader applicability, I would like to see that reflected …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Mirja.  Given that the text (in the Abstract) already recognize the broader applicability, I would like to see that reflected in a clear way on the title and the contents.
2017-06-19
13 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-06-18
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2017-06-18
13 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-13.txt
2017-06-18
13 (System) New version approved
2017-06-18
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>, Lucien Avramov <lucienav@google.com>
2017-06-18
13 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-06-16
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2017-06-15
12 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-12.txt
2017-06-15
12 (System) New version approved
2017-06-15
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>, Lucien Avramov <lucienav@google.com>
2017-06-15
12 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-06-15
11 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-11.txt
2017-06-15
11 (System) New version approved
2017-06-15
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>, Lucien Avramov <lucienav@google.com>
2017-06-15
11 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-06-14
10 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot 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 …
[Ballot 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. (+ remove the intro text on data centers because the same text is anyway in draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology).
2017-06-14
10 Mirja Kühlewind Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-06-14
10 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot 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 …
[Ballot 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.
2017-06-14
10 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-06-13
10 Matthew Miller Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Matthew Miller. Sent review to list.
2017-06-13
10 Warren Kumari Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-06-22
2017-06-13
10 Warren Kumari IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2017-06-13
10 Warren Kumari Ballot has been issued
2017-06-13
10 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2017-06-13
10 Warren Kumari Created "Approve" ballot
2017-06-13
10 Warren Kumari Ballot writeup was changed
2017-06-13
10 Warren Kumari Ballot writeup was changed
2017-06-13
10 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-06-09
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville
2017-06-09
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville
2017-06-09
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Adam Montville.
2017-06-08
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2017-06-08
10 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-10.txt
2017-06-08
10 (System) New version approved
2017-06-08
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>, Lucien Avramov <lucienav@google.com>
2017-06-08
10 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-06-07
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2017-06-07
09 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-09.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-09.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2017-06-02
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville
2017-06-02
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville
2017-06-01
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2017-06-01
09 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller
2017-05-31
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown
2017-05-31
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown
2017-05-30
09 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-05-30
09 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, sbanks@encrypted.net, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-09.txt> (Data Center Benchmarking Terminology) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Benchmarking Methodology WG
(bmwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Data Center Benchmarking Terminology'
  <draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-09.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-06-13. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


The purpose of this informational document is to establish definitions
and describe measurement techniques for data center benchmarking, as
well as it is to introduce new terminologies applicable to data center
performance evaluations. The purpose of this document is not to define
the test methodology, but rather establish the important concepts for
benchmarking network switches and routers in the data center.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2017-05-30
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-05-30
09 Warren Kumari Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-05-30
09 Warren Kumari Last call was requested
2017-05-30
09 Warren Kumari Last call announcement was generated
2017-05-30
09 Warren Kumari Ballot approval text was generated
2017-05-30
09 Warren Kumari Ballot writeup was generated
2017-05-30
09 Warren Kumari IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2017-05-24
09 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-09.txt
2017-05-24
09 (System) New version approved
2017-05-24
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>, Lucien Avramov <lucienav@google.com>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org
2017-05-24
09 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-05-23
08 Warren Kumari IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2017-05-16
08 Sarah Banks
This is the Publication Request and document shepherd write-up for   

Data Center Benchmarking Methodology and Terminology
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-08
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-06


This version is dated …
This is the Publication Request and document shepherd write-up for   

Data Center Benchmarking Methodology and Terminology
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-08
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-06


This version is dated 11 May 2017.

Sarah Banks is the Document Shepherd, and prepared this form: May 2017.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational, as indicated on the title page. All BMWG RFCs are traditionally Informational, in part because they do not define protocols and the traditional conditions for standards track advancement did not apply.  However, they are specifications and the RFC 2119 terms are applicable to identify the level of requirements.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
This draft establishes definitions and techniques for benchmarking within the data center. The draft defines a set of definitions, metrics, methodologies and terminologies for benchmarking in a wide variety of traffic conditions.


Working Group Summary:
There has been an extensive amount of work done on this draft, and progress made on revisions, feedback, and comments. There have been extensive conversations on, for example, "goodput". This is one of the most reviewed drafts we've had in BMWG in quite some time, and the document has undergone 2 WGLCs.


Document Quality:
This document is ready for publication.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Sarah Banks is the Shepherd, Warren Kumari is the AD.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

I've reviewed this draft at WGLC. Nits check is clean. All comments and feedback by the WG have been addressed by the Author.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No. This document has been thoroughly reviewed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No. There was extensive discussion and review and revision of this draft, over a long period of time, and the draft underwent 2 WGLCs.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

No IPR has been filed.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

A second WGLC was called on September 13, 2016, and closed on September 27, 2016. There has been a significant amount of feedback on this draft, reviewed in meetings and on the list, and the latest revisions of the draft include and account for feedback from IETF98. There is solid consensus that this draft is ready for publication.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

All references are either Normative or Informative, and marked as such.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

None

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There are no IANA actions required.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

NA.
2017-05-16
08 Sarah Banks Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari
2017-05-16
08 Sarah Banks IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2017-05-16
08 Sarah Banks IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-05-16
08 Sarah Banks IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-05-16
08 Sarah Banks Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2017-05-16
08 Sarah Banks Changed document writeup
2017-05-11
08 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-08.txt
2017-05-11
08 (System) New version approved
2017-05-11
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>, Lucien Avramov <lucienav@google.com>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org
2017-05-11
08 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-04-26
07 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-07.txt
2017-04-26
07 (System) New version approved
2017-04-26
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>, Lucien Avramov <lucienav@google.com>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org
2017-04-26
07 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2017-03-11
06 Al Morton Notification list changed to Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
2017-03-11
06 Al Morton Document shepherd changed to Sarah Banks
2016-12-30
06 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-06.txt
2016-12-30
06 (System) New version approved
2016-12-30
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " jhrapp@gmail.com" <jrapp@vmware.com>, bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, "Lucien Avramov" <lavramov@cisco.com>
2016-12-30
06 Lucien Avramov Uploaded new revision
2016-10-29
05 (System) Document has expired
2016-04-27
05 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-05.txt
2016-04-04
04 Al Morton Added to session: IETF-95: bmwg  Thu-1000
2016-02-22
04 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-04.txt
2016-01-07
03 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-03.txt
2016-01-06
02 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-02.txt
2015-10-19
01 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-01.txt
2015-06-18
00 Al Morton This document now replaces draft-dcbench-def instead of None
2015-06-18
00 Lucien Avramov New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-dcbench-terminology-00.txt