Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-07
review-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-07-rtgdir-lc-robles-2018-02-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term
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
Other Reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Paul Hoffman (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Ron Bonica
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Stewart Bryant
Review State Completed
Reviewer Ines Robles
Review review-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-07-rtgdir-lc-robles-2018-02-02
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/7nAIItTu0SnlZIsUBUottajlbC4
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2018-02-02
Review completed: 2018-02-02

Review
review-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-07-rtgdir-lc-robles-2018-02-02

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review,
and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments
 that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-07
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 02-02-2018
Intended status: Informational

Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments:

I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and clear to understand. The figures are clear and helpful.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

-There is a definition of Northbound Interface (NI) in section 2.1.2, but there is no a definition for Southbound Interface(SI).
A definition for SI, was available in the version 00 of this document [1], but deleted in further versions.
There is a reason for that?
I think it would be nice to have a definition for SI, or a pointer to one such as for NI.

- In section 2.1.2 in the Discussion, where it states: "...and orchestration systems to program...",
I think it would be nice to add an example, "...and orchestration systems such as [add example here] to program..."

- In section 2.1.8 you mention Cluster/Redundancy Mode.
  Does it include a "Distributed Controller" mode/function, like e.g. mentioned in [2]?

- Section 2.3.2.2 in the Definition paragraph: "...(number of nodes, links and hosts)..." it seems to me like the hosts are not considered nodes in here?.
Is that correct?

Nits:

Section 2.1.2: is same Service... => is same as the Service...
Section 2.3.1.4: in the Definition paragraph: "at it Southbound..." => "at its Southbound..."
Section 2.3.1.5: in the Definition paragraph: "at it Southbound..." => "at its Southbound..."
Section 4: The test coverage table
  -In the column 1, file 1: there is an empty space, maybe it would be nice to add a description for that column like "Stage" or something like that. What do you think?
  -In the Speed column, in the Setup stage: 1- Network Topology Discovery => Network Topology Discovery time.
  -In the Reliability column, in the Operational stage: 2- Exception Handling Detection Time => Exception Handling

Thanks for this document,

Best Regards,

Ines.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-00
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/96/materials/slides-96-sdnrg-11/