Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-02-02
Requested 2018-01-19
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Bhuvaneswaran Vengainathan, Anton Basil, Mark Tassinari, Vishwas Manral, Sarah Banks
Draft last updated 2018-01-29
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Scott Bradner (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Russ Housley (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Henning Rogge
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-07-rtgdir-lc-rogge-2018-01-29
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2018-01-29



Min Ye asked me to do a review of

I first have to say I like the fact that the draft has a "sequence
diagram" for each of the test cases in the appendix. This will make it
easier to design test software without forgetting small things or
misinterpreting the text version of the test.

Second, in chapter 5.1.1 you might want to consider that topology
discovery can have transient results that might be (accidentally) the
correct one. Just because the you get the right topology once it
doesn't mean that the algorithm is already in a stable state. I would
suggest keeping the "test three times for same result" also for the
correct topology.

Similar in chapter 5.2.2, it might be good to compare the results of
procedure step 3 and 4... see if they have a different of one of more.
I am not sure if a test result should be just invalid if the
difference is larger or if the difference should recorded in the

Last, the Table of Content link to chapter 3 and the "section 10" link
in chapter 4.1 seem to be broken.

Henning Rogge