Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
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.
Section 220.127.116.11 [...] 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.
I share Martin's concerns about the use of the word "standard" in this document's abstract and introduction.
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./