Skip to main content

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