[Tsv-art] draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-07 ietf last call Tsvart review
Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 07 August 2026 09:37 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsv-art@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from [10.244.9.199] (gaia.k8s.ietf.org [4.156.85.76]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27CA1125425D0; Fri, 7 Aug 2026 02:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1786095427; bh=p7jZ8BZRjtk88pkJrxJ9zXrEe3MQRx/CWZnKNi2+mtA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:Date; b=bNeCMZCqgzfpFvKOzzMpqw+xnFn1hGXSdTJmSh+RTbG5eW4HAekvkU/HLHKvT+Yse SawQOUx1K5DHDkpsoXugBUXFLuQvELWicLzmzZYob6if3Z9ofCxwGl+VSbEsbXZ8cl sMB95abJOb2sgh6gF/a2n/Aloj5EvQmJsMRsWs9g=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.70.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <178609542702.692.908034213236542075@dt-datatracker-559c48c7fb-llb9x>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2026 02:37:07 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: 57TTRYWFE3HNKLRTTI4TLUYQXLC6EFZA
X-Message-ID-Hash: 57TTRYWFE3HNKLRTTI4TLUYQXLC6EFZA
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tsv-art.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: bmwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Subject: [Tsv-art] draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-07 ietf last call Tsvart review
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/523NjKhhWL4s2Y6RbcqNXpcHc2c>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tsv-art-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tsv-art-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tsv-art-leave@ietf.org>
Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth Title: Benchmarking Methodology for Segment Routing (SR) Reviewer: Mirja Kühlewind Review result: Ready with Nits This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. This is a clearly written document! I couldn’t identify any transport issues as this is describing benchmarking and not production traffic. Some minor nits that catched my eye when reading: 1) There are some acronyms that could be extended: NFV, SUT, PSP, USP, USD, POS/PPP 2) Section 2.2 >The SID list should not be tested for operations beyond the announced capabilities of OSPF or ISIS on the DUT, but, if there is an interest, it may be tested how the DUT reacts in this situation. Should normative language be used here? Otherwise I propose “is not required to test for…” > It is RECOMMENDED that the top SID on the list should emulate the traffic engineering scenario. I don’t understand this sentence. Which traffic engineering scenario is meant here? But maybe that just me… 3) Section 5 seems good advice but it’s that advice more generic than for the SR tests?
- [Tsv-art] draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-07 ietf l… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
- [Tsv-art] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-07 ie… Paolo Volpato