Re: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-issu-meth-01: (with COMMENT)

Benoit, we will addressing your comments shortly, at the same time, we
are also discussing  among the authors on how to best address Kathleen¹s
observation, on this one we are still Œunsure¹ / debating   since as you
pointed out  all BMWG documents / tests are based on what  [RFC 6815]
defines  as an ITE (Isolated test Environment)

Rgds 

Fer




On 8/5/15, 3:41 PM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-bmwg-issu-meth-01: 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-issu-meth/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>- Some discrepancies regarding MUST, SHOULD, MAY
>
>One one side: The hardware configuration of the DUT SHOULD be identical
>to the one expected to be or currently deployed in production
>One the other side: the feature, protocol timing and other relevant
>configurations should be matched to the expected production environment.
>
>Note: potentially some other discrepancie with lower/upper case
>MUST/SHOULD/MAY
>
>- expand "NSR"
>
>
>nits:
>- point missing in the abstract
>- section 1 title is wrongly formatted
>
>