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

This thread is tending toward the "polemic."  I suggest we all obtain and
read the current charters for the WGs in question.  A charter can always be
amended, but it's a good starting point.

I think the issue isn't so much "real world networks" versus "lab networks."
The original IPPM / BMWG split might be better thought of in terms of
audience.  IPPM was for network operators & planners.  BMWG was one element
of that, of course, but clearly *was* started with an eye toward providing a
standard to replace manufacturers marketing claims back at the start of the
router wars, so it was element-oriented and somewhat more enterprise useful
compared to network operator useful.

Jim McQuaid

NetIQ

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ White [mailto:ruwhite@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:04 PM
To: sporetsky@quarrytech.com
Cc: jim.mcquaid@netiq.com; hcb@gettcomm.com; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

> Now we have evolved to the request to make a BCP for measuring network 
> convergence.  I have to ask a question first asked last April regarding 
> this work - Why is the IPPM not the best place to discuss this work?

IPPM deals with testing real world networks, correct? While BMWG deals with 
lab networks, correct? If that's so, there's necessarily going to be some 
overlap in testing methodologies between the two.

> In addition, for the benefit of the BMWG could you please clearly explain 
> what is being benchmarked, how it is being benchmarked, and why you think 
> this is appropriate for the BMWG.

Why does testing have only to do with specific benchmarks performable only 
on specific devices by a given manufacturer? Is this working group really 
that narrow minded? Just as each draft we pass has an "applicability" 
section, at least, and an applicaability draft at best, we should also 
endeavor to show how to use testing in a larger sense. For instance, the 
types of things this draft outlines--what are the things a tester really 
needs to think about when developing a test, beyond specific techniques? 
What are the things a user of testing information must look for when 
examining results, beyond: "I put a packet in here, and out it came over 
there?"

There's a lot more to testing than specific tests, as just the existence of 
applicability tests shows. This type of document would be an extension of 
these applicability documents, to provide a set of best practices for all 
testers and users of tests of network systems.

> Please note that at this time I am neither "for" or "against" this 
> becoming a work item.  However, I would like to read answers to these 
> basic questions so I can make an informed personal decision.  We eagerly 
> await your answers to these basic questions.

I hope this WG decides to actually pursue work beyond point tests, and 
start to deal with all the issues in benchmarking network systems. I 
realize the WG is mostly made up of vendors of testing equipment, but there 
are some of us here who are concerned, as well

Russ

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

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