Subject: [bmwg] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 19:10:26 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-sdn-controller-benchmark-meth-08: 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-meth/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding this text:

"The test SHOULD use one of the test setups described in section 3.1
   or section 3.2 of this document in combination with Appendix A."

Appendix A is titled "Example Test Topology." If it's really an example, then
it seems like it should not be normatively required. So either the appendix
needs to be re-named, or the normative language needs to be removed. And if it
is normatively required, why is it in an appendix? The document would also
benefit from describing what the exception cases to the SHOULD are (I guess if
the tester doesn't care about having comparable results with other tests?).