[bmwg] General questions about BMWG - the usage of benchmark RFCs and autonomous network levels

"Liushucheng (Will Liu)" <liushucheng@huawei.com> Tue, 30 July 2019 06:33 UTC

Return-Path: <liushucheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5191200B3; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gFkDS9xMzAjm; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FD541200A3; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 73A9A96F5C498DDEE875; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:33:05 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:32:52 +0100
Received: from DGGEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by dggeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:30:53 +0800
From: "Liushucheng (Will Liu)" <liushucheng@huawei.com>
To: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
CC: "bmwg-chairs@ietf.org" <bmwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: General questions about BMWG - the usage of benchmark RFCs and autonomous network levels
Thread-Index: AdVGoEYd0mIJ07EoQaiotX0stXbifg==
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:30:53 +0000
Message-ID: <C9B5F12337F6F841B35C404CF0554ACB8BEA34D8@dggeml509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C9B5F12337F6F841B35C404CF0554ACB8BEA34D8dggeml509mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/DZgXaavBv6HvYkCRqHPygU14TwM>
Subject: [bmwg] General questions about BMWG - the usage of benchmark RFCs and autonomous network levels
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:33:09 -0000


I attended the meeting on last Monday (my first BMWG meeting, used to work in v6ops, 6man, nmrg, etc), and learn a lot thanks!
I have some questions maybe naïve (Sorry I searched in BMWG mail list but didn’t find the answer):

1.       I took a look in BMWG datatracker page, and find almost all the drafts are informational. Many other WGs in IETF are working on protocols and models which are mostly standard track. How to use the output of BMWG? And is there any examples that RFCs are used by operators/ vendors/enterprise users?

2.       Recently, there is a new trend about autonomous network, learning from the successful example from automobile self-driving 0-5 levels. And I saw some SDOs are working on defining the autonomous network 5 levels. https://www.tmforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/22553-Autonomous-Networks-whitepaper.pdf  Do you think this work is related to BMWG and we can start some IETF version work here?

Regards,  / 致礼!
Will LIU   / 刘树成
Shucheng LIU (Will, 刘树成), Ph.D.
Senior Principal Delegate in Standardization Area
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd