Terminology for Benchmarking Software-Defined Networking (SDN) Controller Performance
draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-10-29
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-08-31
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-08-27
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2018-07-26
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2018-05-25
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-05-25
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-05-25
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-05-25
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2018-05-25
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-05-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2018-05-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2018-05-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-05-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-05-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2018-05-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2018-05-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2018-05-25
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-05-25
|
10 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-10.txt |
2018-05-25
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-25
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vishwas Manral , Sarah Banks , Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan , Anton Basil , Mark Tassinari |
2018-05-25
|
10 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2018-04-19
|
09 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-04-19
|
09 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2018-04-19
|
09 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] I share Martin's concerns about the use of the word "standard" in this document's abstract and introduction. |
2018-04-19
|
09 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-04-18
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-04-18
|
09 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 2.3.1.3 [...] This benchmark is obtained by sending asynchronous messages from every connected Network Device at the rate that the … [Ballot comment] Section 2.3.1.3 [...] This benchmark is obtained by sending asynchronous messages from every connected Network Device at the rate that the controller processes (without dropping them). "obtained" doesn't feel like the right word. I'm also a little surprised that there is not consideration to a more-general "acceptable loss fraction" for which the processing rate is determined -- the zero-loss case is certainly interesting, but sometimes it is also useful to know how the system's behavior degrades. |
2018-04-18
|
09 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2018-04-18
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-04-18
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-04-18
|
09 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot comment] Hello, I wonder about the use of the term "standard" in the abstract in view of the intended status of the document (Informational). … [Ballot comment] Hello, I wonder about the use of the term "standard" in the abstract in view of the intended status of the document (Informational). Could the use of this word confuse the reader? Also, in the Introduction the word "standard" is used. I don't have the same concern here but wonder if a reference to these standard interfaces shouldn't be provided. Found a few nits found here and there: s/an Network Device/a Network Device/ s/In order to for the controller to/In order for the controller to/ s/This benchmark determine /This benchmark determines/ s/at its Southbound interface ./at its Southbound interface./ |
2018-04-18
|
09 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2018-04-18
|
09 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2018-04-16
|
09 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2018-04-16
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] A nit: The terms defined in this section are extensions to the terms defined in [RFC7426] "Software-Defined Networking (SDN): … [Ballot comment] A nit: The terms defined in this section are extensions to the terms defined in [RFC7426] "Software-Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture Terminology". This RFC should be referred before attempting to make use of this document. When this draft is published, "this RFC" won't be as clear as it is now (the phrase would also apply to the current document, which would be an RFC). Perhaps "That RFC", or even "RFC 7426" would be clearer. There are a lot of measures that say Measurement Units: N/A You might mean "not milliseconds, or some measure like that", but I found it confusing that something like "Trial Repetition" doesn't have measurement units. Saying something like "Number of trials", or even "Integer" would be clearer to me. |
2018-04-16
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2018-04-16
|
09 | Stewart Bryant | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list. |
2018-03-08
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2018-03-08
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2018-03-05
|
09 | Ron Bonica | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ron Bonica. |
2018-03-02
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-03-02
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2018-03-02
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2018-02-27
|
09 | Warren Kumari | Please review with draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth -- it will make more sense that way. |
2018-02-27
|
09 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2018-02-27
|
09 | Warren Kumari | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-04-19 |
2018-02-27
|
09 | Warren Kumari | Ballot has been issued |
2018-02-27
|
09 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2018-02-27
|
09 | Warren Kumari | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-02-27
|
09 | Warren Kumari | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-02-27
|
09 | Warren Kumari | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-02-25
|
09 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-09.txt |
2018-02-25
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-25
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vishwas Manral , Sarah Banks , Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan , Anton Basil , Mark Tassinari |
2018-02-25
|
09 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-25
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2018-02-25
|
08 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-08.txt |
2018-02-25
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-25
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vishwas Manral , Sarah Banks , Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan , Anton Basil , Mark Tassinari |
2018-02-25
|
08 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-02
|
07 | Ines Robles | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list. |
2018-02-02
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2018-01-31
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Paul Hoffman. |
2018-01-31
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-01-31
|
07 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-07, 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-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-07, 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 Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2018-01-31
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Ron Bonica. |
2018-01-30
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list. |
2018-01-25
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman |
2018-01-25
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman |
2018-01-25
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2018-01-25
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2018-01-25
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2018-01-25
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2018-01-21
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ines Robles |
2018-01-21
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ines Robles |
2018-01-19
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2018-01-19
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-01-19
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-02-02): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com, draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term@ietf.org, Al Morton , … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-02-02): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: bmwg-chairs@ietf.org, acmorton@att.com, draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term@ietf.org, Al Morton , bmwg@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Terminology for Benchmarking SDN Controller Performance) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg) to consider the following document: - 'Terminology for Benchmarking SDN Controller Performance' 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 2018-02-02. 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 This document defines terminology for benchmarking an SDN controller's control plane performance. It extends the terminology already defined in RFC 7426 for the purpose of benchmarking SDN controllers. The terms provided in this document help to benchmark SDN controller's performance independent of the controller's supported protocols and/or network services. A mechanism for benchmarking the performance of SDN controllers is defined in the companion methodology document. These two documents provide a standard mechanism to measure and evaluate the performance of various controller implementations. [ Note that this document is closely related to draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth. It might be worth reading them together!] The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2018-01-19
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-01-19
|
07 | Warren Kumari | Last call was requested |
2018-01-19
|
07 | Warren Kumari | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-01-19
|
07 | Warren Kumari | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-01-19
|
07 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2018-01-19
|
07 | Warren Kumari | Last call announcement was changed |
2018-01-18
|
07 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2018-01-10
|
07 | Al Morton | Document Titles: Terminology/Methodology for Benchmarking SDN Controller Performance Filenames: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-07 draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-07 Intended Status: Informational Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February … Document Titles: Terminology/Methodology for Benchmarking SDN Controller Performance Filenames: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-07 draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-07 Intended Status: Informational Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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, all BMWG RFCs to date are Informational. The status is correctly indicated on the title pages. (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 These two memos specify the terminology, benchmark definitions and methods for characterizing key performance aspects of Software Defined Network (SDN) Controllers. Considering the number of benchmarking and performance comparison studies that have been published prior to standards development, this is an important area for new specifications and tools to implement them. These memos focus on the ability of SDN controllers to learn topology, communicate with switches, and instantiate paths using both reactive and proactive techniques (including controller clusters). Further, requirements for test traffic and network emulation capabilities of the test devices are specified. The memos approach this problem in a generic way (Openflow specific procedures are included in an Appendix) for broader applicability and longevity. Working Group Summary Consensus for these drafts required several WGLC which prompted careful review and further comments. However, the process to achieve consensus was smooth, and at no time was there sustained controversy. Document Quality There are existing implementations of the methods described here, both full and partial, and many are available as Open Source tools. Tools are tied to specific versions of Northbound and Southbound protocols, but the memo avoids this dependency (and redundancy with other industry efforts) by defining benchmarks for generic SDN controller functions (as suggested in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/Glchqbvg6F7vOUc0ug3ACyztcNg ). The document benefits from review in the NFVRG, and from interactions with the Open Platform for Network Function Virtualization (OPNFV) "CPerf" project team (which includes members from Open Daylight Integration test team, ETSI NFV Test and Open Source WG, and other Linux Foundation and independent Open Source projects related to SDN performance). Personnel Al Morton is the Document Shepherd Warren Kumari is the Responsible Area Director (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. The Doc Shepherd has reviewed many versions of these drafts, and finds that the current versions are ready for publication (recognizing that some editorial suggestions are a certainty of further review, and that the editors are very willing to implement them). Note: 1. The Shepherd provided editorial suggestions for the authors, and they were addressed in 07 versions. 2. In the -term draft, it may be possible to avoid page breaks in the Figures and the Table in Sec 3. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 additional reviews appear to be needed (see below). (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. No Specific issues. (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. All five authors listed on the drafts have confirmed that they are unaware of any IPR related to these drafts. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are currently no IPR disclosures for either draft officially submitted to the IETF. (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? Over time, most of the working group has participated in discussion and review of these drafts, so I think it is fair to say that the majority of the WG understands and agrees with the content. (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 appeals threatened. (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. The nits check is free of warnings and errors. (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? Yes. (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. No (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 requests of IANA, as indicated. (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. NA (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 |
2018-01-10
|
07 | Al Morton | Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari |
2018-01-10
|
07 | Al Morton | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2018-01-10
|
07 | Al Morton | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-01-10
|
07 | Al Morton | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-01-10
|
07 | Al Morton | Changed document writeup |
2018-01-09
|
07 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-07.txt |
2018-01-09
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-09
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vishwas Manral , Sarah Banks , Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan , Anton Basil , Mark Tassinari |
2018-01-09
|
07 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-07
|
06 | Al Morton | The Write-up is complete, Waiting on Author replies to IPR Disclosure Question. |
2018-01-07
|
06 | Al Morton | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2018-01-07
|
06 | Al Morton | Changed document writeup |
2017-11-16
|
06 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-06.txt |
2017-11-16
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-16
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vishwas Manral , Sarah Banks , Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan , Anton Basil , Mark Tassinari |
2017-11-16
|
06 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-30
|
05 | Al Morton | Ends on Nov 16, 2017 |
2017-10-30
|
05 | Al Morton | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2017-10-30
|
05 | Al Morton | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-10-30
|
05 | Al Morton | Added to session: IETF-100: bmwg Thu-1550 |
2017-10-02
|
05 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-05.txt |
2017-10-02
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-02
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vishwas Manral , Sarah Banks , Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan , Anton Basil , Mark Tassinari |
2017-10-02
|
05 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-16
|
04 | Al Morton | Added to session: IETF-99: bmwg Mon-0930 |
2017-06-29
|
04 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-04.txt |
2017-06-29
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-29
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vishwas Manral , Sarah Banks , Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan , Anton Basil , Mark Tassinari |
2017-06-29
|
04 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-29
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vishwas Manral , Sarah Banks , Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan , Anton Basil , Mark Tassinari |
2017-06-29
|
04 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-11
|
03 | Al Morton | Added to session: IETF-98: bmwg Thu-0900 |
2017-01-07
|
03 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-03.txt |
2017-01-07
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-01-07
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan" , "Mark Tassinari" , "Anton Basil" , "Vishwas Manral" , "Sarah Banks" |
2017-01-07
|
03 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | Uploaded new revision |
2016-12-01
|
02 | Al Morton | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2016-12-01
|
02 | Al Morton | Notification list changed to "Al Morton" <acmorton@att.com> |
2016-12-01
|
02 | Al Morton | Document shepherd changed to Al Morton |
2016-12-01
|
02 | Al Morton | First WGLC closed on Nov 15, 2016 |
2016-12-01
|
02 | Al Morton | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2016-11-12
|
02 | Al Morton | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-11-09
|
02 | Al Morton | Added to session: IETF-97: bmwg Tue-0930 |
2016-07-08
|
02 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-02.txt |
2016-04-04
|
01 | Al Morton | Added to session: IETF-95: bmwg Thu-1000 |
2016-03-21
|
01 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-01.txt |
2015-11-04
|
00 | Al Morton | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2015-11-04
|
00 | Al Morton | This document now replaces draft-bhuvan-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term instead of None |
2015-10-18
|
00 | Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan | New version available: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-00.txt |