Re: [bmwg] WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg)
Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Fri, 22 October 2010 01:21 UTC
Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962C03A6832; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZNM6MnBlag3m; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAC83A6359; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTMDnZLSZDsZdSO4bTvHHVne0yyD2kttI@postini.com; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:22:53 PDT
Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:20:05 -0700
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:20:04 -0400
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:20:03 -0400
Thread-Topic: WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg)
Thread-Index: ActxZmu5Cx+HWZV4SSCG/xl8+1lsBwAIJdOg
Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B02137FE43@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <20101021210538.532A33A68A0@core3.amsl.com> <p06240812c8e65e8dd610@[10.20.30.158]>
In-Reply-To: <p06240812c8e65e8dd610@[10.20.30.158]>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "acmorton@att.com" <acmorton@att.com>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:21:17 -0000
Paul,
WG charters typically talk about sending drafts to the IESG. Beyond that, they can't make a commitment because the IESG's behavior is beyond their control.
That said, I will ping the author about this draft. I have not done so in the past because she has had health issues.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:25 PM
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Cc: acmorton@att.com; bmwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg)
>
> At 2:05 PM -0700 10/21/10, IESG Secretary wrote:
> >A modified charter has been submitted for the Benchmarking Methodology
> >(bmwg) working group in the Operations and Management Area of the
> IETF.
> >The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified charter
> is
> >provided below for informational purposes only. Please send your
> comments
> >to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by Thursday, October 28,
> 2010.
> >. . .
> >Done IPsec Device Benchmarking Terminology to IESG Review
> >Done IPsec Device Benchmarking Methodology to IESG Review
>
> I think "to IESG review" is not really the goal here; the goal is to
> get them to become RFCs.
>
> According to the Datatracker (<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
> ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth/> and <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
> ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term/>), the last recorded action on them was taken
> about a year ago. None of the IESG DISCUSS issues seem to have been
> resolved, and the drafts just died. Wearing my IPsecME co-chair hat, I
> would like to see action on these these two documents be part of the
> new charter.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
- [bmwg] WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Metho… IESG Secretary
- Re: [bmwg] WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking M… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [bmwg] WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking M… Ronald Bonica