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

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:14:35 -0700

Spencer Dawkins 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

---

From: Sarah B <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:01:04 -0700

Hi Spencer,
	Thanks for your note; we've got it, and are working through the feedback now (particularly the measurement units comments).

Thanks
Sarah

> On Apr 16, 2018, at 9:14 AM, Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
>