1 BENCHMARKING IGP DATA PLANE ROUTE CONVERGENCE draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-08.txt draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-08.txt draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-08.txt Co-authors are Scott Poretsky of Reef Point and Brent Imhoff of Juniper Networks 64th IETF Meeting – Vancouver

2 Current Status 3 documents completed 2 nd WGLC 1.draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-app-08.txt, Considerations for Benchmarking IGP Data Plane Route Convergence 2.draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-08.txt, Terminology for Benchmarking IGP Data Plane Route Convergence 3.draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-08.txt, Benchmarking Methodology for IGP Data Plane Route Convergence -09 will be issued soon to correct NITs

3 Nits for –09 (1 of 2) Clean-up Normative/Informative References Clarify time measurement granularity is to milliseconds Specify the packet size includes Payload, IP header, and Link- Layer header Clarify last sentence of Convergence Packet loss discussion Fix figures with formatting error of the ‘Tester’ Change "this draft describes" to "this document describes" Make Consistent use of term Throughput (not Forwarding Rate)

4 Nits for –09 (2 of 2) Found rfc3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 boilerplate (on line 696), which is fine, but *also* found rfc2026 Section 10.4C paragraph 1 boilerplate on line 42. It should be removed. Some lines –between 73 to 77 characters long (26 instances) –with control characters (52 instances) –With an extra space between words (5 instances) Considerations (Applicability) missing form feeds

5 Next Steps -09 will be issued soon with changes 1.List from Al Morton 2.2 Nits from Thomas E 3.Nit from Timmons P 4.Few IETF I-D Nits 5.Anything else? Do we need additional non-BMWG reviewer? Goal is –09 to go to IESG