Subject: [bmwg] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 07:10:22 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Thank you to Robert Sparks for the SECDIR review.

** Section 3.* and Section 4.*  Are there recommended values for X, N, or F? 
If this document is intended to help others benchmark EVPNs, it would useful to
describe how to calculate the number of times to run the test or how many MACs
to generate to get useful results.

** Section 3 and 4.  If all the metrics use Topology 1, and this is the only
topology provided in the document, why repeat it each time in the description
of each metric?

** Section 7.  Thanks for adding the text “Security features mentioned in the
RFC 7432 will affect the test results” in response to the SECDIR review.  Is it
possible to clarify this text?  Which RFC7432 security mechanisms are assumed
to be in Topology 1?  Could a summary cross-walk of the RFC7432 reference
security mechanisms against their impact on the metrics be easily documented?

** idnits returns:

== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
     a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC7632' is mentioned on line 111, but not defined

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2544' is defined on line 1248, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2899' is defined on line 1253, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7623' is defined on line 1268, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

** Editorial nits:
-- Whole document.  Editorial.  Choose either “VLAN” or “vlan” and use it
consistently in the document.

-- Section 2.  Typo. s/support,Interior/support, Interior/

-- Section 2.  Typo. s/parameters.It/parameters. It/

-- Section 3.*. Typo in a few places. s/standrard/standard/g

-- Section 4.11. Typo s/process,CPU/process, CPU/