Subject: [bmwg] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 02:52:12 -0700

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-term/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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./