RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> Tue, 05 October 2004 15:38 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08394 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:38:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CErEb-0000Qj-Tn; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:28:13 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CErBT-0008VE-Rw for bmwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:24:59 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07481 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:24:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CErKm-00058L-C3 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:34:37 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2004 11:42:58 -0400
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from cisco.com (shako.cisco.com [64.102.17.78]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i95FOPr5026492; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:24:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from russpc.Whitehouse.intra (rtp-vpn3-421.cisco.com [10.82.217.167]) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA05003; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:24:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:23:53 -0400
From: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com>
To: Jim McQuaid <jim.mcquaid@netiq.com>
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch
In-Reply-To: <613E3F060982754CBF2FC6751E82679B05B225D1@ralexch01.netiq.local>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.61.0410051122350.3196@russpc.Whitehouse.intra>
References: <613E3F060982754CBF2FC6751E82679B05B225D1@ralexch01.netiq.local>
X-X-Sender: ruwhite@shako.cisco.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Cc: hcb@gettcomm.com, sporetsky@quarrytech.com, bmwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org

> Isn't there a "best practices" genre of RFC which might pertain?

Actually, you've hit the nail on the head. What would hte WG think of 
taking on creating a BCP for testing, and using this doc as the core of 
that effort? That fits what this doc is driving at better than an 
informational, and it certainly doesn't fit into the concept of an actual 
set of tests, defined, etc.

Thoughts?

:-)

Russ


__________________________________
riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone


_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg