[Tsv-art] Re: draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-07 ietf last call Tsvart review

[Paolo Volpato <[e-mail]>]

Dear Mirja,

Many thanks for your detailed review of draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth.
You will see our comments inline, marked as [PV].

Please consider that we have in plan to submit a new revision after the summer break to address the comments received.

On behalf of the co-authors,
Best regards
Paolo
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2026 11:37
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: draft-ietf-bmwg-sr-bench-meth-07 ietf last call Tsvart review

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 [e-mail] 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

[PV] Ok, we'll expand the acronyms.

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…”

[PV] We'll rephrase to be unambiguous. The meaning here is that actually, there is no need to test unwanted capabilities of the IGP protocols.

> 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…

[PV] The idea is the top SID is always explicitly associated to the next hop in the SR path (for example, the top label from the "SR local block"). If the sentence is not clear we'll rephrase it in the next version of the draft.  

3) Section 5 seems good advice but it’s that advice more generic than for the SR tests?

[PV] Well, the point is that we are discussing lab tests, it is difficult to highlight something different. Anyway, we'll look also at section 5 to identify some more specific considerations.