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?