Re: [bmwg] Agenda for BMWG session at IETF-109

Lencse Gábor <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Sun, 08 November 2020 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F9E3A0475 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 10:21:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cChMVINuyOHp for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 10:21:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (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 C850A3A0639 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 10:21:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.135] (host-79-121-41-201.kabelnet.hu [79.121.41.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 0A8ILcxr033028 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 19:21:45 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host host-79-121-41-201.kabelnet.hu [79.121.41.201] claimed to be [192.168.1.135]
To: bmwg@ietf.org
References: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF0147645848@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Lencse_G=c3=a1bor?= <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Message-ID: <665bd46b-f8b6-6d4f-bcbe-92c958987b79@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2020 19:21:34 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF0147645848@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2148FEDAA3F66A707F6B5BCA"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=79.121.41.201; helo=[192.168.1.135]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/QY9APZhx0I8n2efBfHjS9ks8a2Q>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Agenda for BMWG session at IETF-109
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: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 18:22:04 -0000

Dear Al,

Thank you very much for including our draft, too:

  - An Upgrade to Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lencse-bmwg-rfc2544-bis-00
    status:
    - no updated text, but two exchanges on the list:
    >>>>> add <<<<<<

Unfortunately, we did not have time to progress with the draft. So now 
we do not have anything to present regarding the draft. But we do not 
want to abandon it. I hope that we'll be able to progress with it before 
IETF-110.

    - Several discussion threads related to this draft on list:
        Many other RFC2544 updates:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/yEzFCign03ZveEUkvXsEevm8dDU/
        strict packet time-outs for PDV and the siitperf implementation/tool
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/50qoL0gxTEKGU6CkUwPIf8FO-hc/
        different source and destination port numbers
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/Y3XIteCBVMScSolsagPH_FNoi_E/

However, I have results regarding siitperf, my RFC 8219 compliant SIIT 
tester. (The usage of random port numbers is working well. I'm currently 
working on calibrating it with a legacy RFC 2544 tester by benhmarking 
the same DUT with the two devices and comparing their results.) If there 
is interest in the WG for it, I would be happy to present. But I do not 
want to push it.

So, what do you think?

Best regards,

Gábor



07/11/2020 22:47 keltezéssel, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) írta:
> BMWG:
>
> The first draft agenda is available [0] for bashing.
>
> I constructed this agenda based on updated drafts, messages to the list, and some messages to the co-chairs.  IF I OVERLOOKED an item, please let me know!
>
> There are lots of drafts to read to prepare for a productive session at IETF-109!
>
> Note the time of the session: 12:00-14:00 UTC+7 on Thursday, November 19, 2020.
>
> Please check your local time! [1]
> In some time zones, like US PST, this meeting will start and end on Wednesday evening.
> The US PST session is 2100 - 2300, on November 18 !
>
> Authors, if you are not planning to attend this session, please let me know!
>
> Al
> bmwg co-chair
>
>
> [0] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/109/agenda/agenda-109-bmwg-00
>
> [1] https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20201119&p1=28&p2=37&p3=224
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg