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

Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> Mon, 04 October 2004 21:21 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 RAA25880 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:21:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEZ3h-0008Q6-OR; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:03:45 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEYsN-0002GE-VE for bmwg@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:52:04 -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 PAA09226 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:52:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CEZ1U-00043x-Vk for bmwg@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:01:31 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2004 15:51:30 -0400
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from cisco.com (shako.cisco.com [64.102.17.78]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i94JpJED006313; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:51:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from russpc.Whitehouse.intra (rtp-vpn1-216.cisco.com [10.82.224.216]) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA23633; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:51:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:50:50 -0400
From: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com>
To: sporetsky@quarrytech.com
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch
In-Reply-To: <496A8683261CD211BF6C0008C733261A04D3B012@email.quarrytech.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.61.0410041543540.1524@russpc.Whitehouse.intra>
References: <496A8683261CD211BF6C0008C733261A04D3B012@email.quarrytech.com>
X-X-Sender: ruwhite@shako.cisco.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Cc: hcb@gettcomm.com, jim.mcquaid@netiq.com, bmwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>
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

> As interesting as this paper is, I always found it to be a tough fit for 
> the BMWG.  This proposed work item has no related terminology or 
> methodology draft.  The tests are not clearly described in the paper and 
> refer to the need to simulate hundreds of nodes for a lab benchmark test. 
> I went through the thread from last April '04 (6 months ago) and read 
> numerous responses in objection to this becoming a work item.  My mind is 
> open to be changed so can you please clearly explain what is being 
> benchmarked, how it is being benchmarked, and why you think this is 
> appropriate for the BMWG.

I suppose the question comes down to this: Is it worth having informational 
documents that provide general background and knoweldge gained from 
experience to people writing other testing documents, and actually running 
tests? Is the only thing the WG can publish actual tests, or can it also 
publish documents explaining how to test, in general, and other work in the 
area of benchmarking?

I would think informational documents about how to test in general, about 
methods and mechanisms, would also be useful.

:-)

Russ

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


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