[bmwg] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking-07: 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-ipv6-tran-tech-benchmarking/



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

Section 4. (Test Setup):

   In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13
   are valid for this document assuming that an IPv6 version of the
   routing packets shown in appendix C.2.6.2 is used.

However, rfc2544 says in several places that the packets in the appendix are
just examples.  The frame in C.2.6.2 is a RIP update -- but Section 11.3
references the rate at which "frames SHOULD be sent" (also in the appendix)
which include OSPF and IGRP, so I'm assuming that any routing protocol used
should work (if the recommendations are followed in terms of frequency, etc.). 
I note that rfc5180 doesn't really say anything about routing setup for IPv6
either. :-(

I know this is not the document to define a complete set of (or even update)
recommendations for routing setup, so my suggestion is to simply take off the
reference to the appendix:

   In terms of route setup, the recommendations of [RFC2544] Section 13
   are valid for this document assuming that IPv6 capable routing
   protocols are used.