Telechat Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-09
review-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-09-genart-telechat-bryant-2019-03-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-03-05
Requested 2019-02-12
Authors Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Varun Singh, Xiaoqing Zhu, Michael Ramalho
Draft last updated 2019-03-06
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Joseph Salowey (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stewart Bryant
State Completed
Review review-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-09-genart-telechat-bryant-2019-03-06
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2019-03-06

Review
review-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-09-genart-telechat-bryant-2019-03-06

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-09
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2019-03-06
IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-11
IESG Telechat date: 2019-03-07

Summary:

I remain concerned as to whether the advice regarding the use of these tests on or in proximity to production networks is strict enough,

Major issues:
Although the security section has been revised since my review of -08, I remain concerned as to whether the advice against testing of production networks is strict enough.

I know that performance testing on production networks has given problems in the past, and this is really no different.

The OPS and SEC ADs should satisfy themselves as to whether the new text is adequate in this regards.

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments: 

  ** There are 6 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one
     being 4 characters in excess of 72.

  ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
     recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119
     keywords. 

     RFC 2119 keyword, line 458: '...didate proposals MAY show the effectiv...'