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

That's fair, however....
Not all currently entertained papers ARE terminology and methodology.  
The root issue here is a question of BMWG scope?  Are all papers in this
forum mandated to be terminology and methodology?  Are we only writing test
plans?  

============================================= 
Michele Bustos 
Ixia Communications

26601 W. Agoura Road 
Calabasas, CA 91302 
Tel: (818) 871-1800 (US), ext. 1 
+1 (818) 871-1800 (international) 
<http://www.ixiacom.com> 
mbustos@ixiacom.com

-----Original Message-----
From: sporetsky@quarrytech.com [mailto:sporetsky@quarrytech.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 9:45 AM
To: mbustos@ixiacom.com; riw@cisco.com; jim.mcquaid@netiq.com
Cc: hcb@gettcomm.com; sporetsky@quarrytech.com; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

This is not a plug-in.  It is very specific to measuring network convergence
and does not plug-in to any other documents..

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Michele Bustos [mailto:mbustos@ixiacom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 12:43 PM
To: 'Russ White'; Jim McQuaid
Cc: hcb@gettcomm.com; sporetsky@quarrytech.com; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

Isn't this considered a "plug-in"??  I don't see the issue if we are
allowing other plug-ins.

============================================= 
Michele Bustos 
Support Engineer 
Ixia Communications

26601 W. Agoura Road 
Calabasas, CA 91302 
Tel: (818) 871-1800 (US), ext. 1 
+1 (818) 871-1800 (international) 
<http://www.ixiacom.com> 
mbustos@ixiacom.com

-----Original Message-----
From: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Russ White
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:24 AM
To: Jim McQuaid
Cc: hcb@gettcomm.com; sporetsky@quarrytech.com; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

> 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

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