IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Newman <dnewman@networktest.com> Wed, 06 October 2004 00:01 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 UAA27344 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:01:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEzCF-0005QH-Ur; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:58:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEyxO-0000AT-Ov for bmwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:43:00 -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 TAA24584 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:42:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.networktest.com ([64.239.163.226] helo=saronni.int.networktest.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CEz6m-0001pP-Jc for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:52:41 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.int.networktest.com [127.0.0.1]) by saronni.int.networktest.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7D017085 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from saronni.int.networktest.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (saronni.int.networktest.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29905-01 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from saronni.int.networktest.com (saronni.int.networktest.com [128.0.0.65]) by saronni.int.networktest.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B934217070 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:37:19 -0700
From: David Newman <dnewman@networktest.com>
X-X-Sender: dnewman@saronni.int.networktest.com
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?
In-Reply-To: <p06110415bd88dcb3b421@[192.168.0.4]>
Message-ID: <20041005163450.V28583@saronni.int.networktest.com>
References: <20041005231733.62400C7D72@newdev.harvard.edu> <p06110415bd88dcb3b421@[192.168.0.4]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> At 7:17 PM -0400 10/5/04, scott bradner wrote:
>> for what its worth, as one who helped make the decision
>> 
>> bmwg was for boxes, ippm was for networks
>> 
(snip)
>
> Which brings up the question: where does a box belong when its performance 
> can be tested only by interaction with other like boxes (i.e., iBGP)?
>

boxes (plural) != box

I've never heard it seriously suggested that multi-box testing is out of 
scope for bmwg. The distinction suggested by Scott and others is tests in 
labs vs. those on production networks.

dn

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email