Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology

Tim Van Herck <herckt@cisco.com> Wed, 29 October 2003 00:30 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11153 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:30:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEeDr-0006gK-8d; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:30:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEeDQ-0006cl-3M for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:29:36 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11043 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:29:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEeDO-0003ur-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:29:34 -0500
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.74.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEeDN-0003sa-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:29:33 -0500
Received: from cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Oct 2003 01:26:56 +0100
Received: from mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com [171.71.163.13]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h9T0T0iw008488; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:29:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cisco.com (dhcp-10-34-44-35.cisco.com [10.34.44.35]) by mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id ALY97503; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:34:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3F9F09CA.2060407@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:28:58 -0800
From: Tim Van Herck <herckt@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
CC: bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology
References: <200310290022.h9T0MwSP005811@newdev.harvard.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200310290022.h9T0MwSP005811@newdev.harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>Would you agree that we try a middleground solution where we stay away 
>>from IMIX and redefine -a- general mix where we only suggest a potential 
>>mix format but require the mix to be reported in any of the documented 
>>results.
> 
> if you mean a concurrent mix of sizes that I think we will just
> agree to disagree - if you mean a sequence of sizes then I'm in that camp

Concurrent mix but enter it as an optional datapoint since it is a 
marketing style result. I'd also be more inclined to only go with 
discrete datapoint reporting. And put emphasis in the document that 
testing with mixes produces fluctuating results.

	Tim-


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