Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology

Kevin Dubray <kdubray@juniper.net> Wed, 29 October 2003 14:48 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09731 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:48:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AErc9-0007AM-Ij; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:48:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AErbN-00072M-NG for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:47:13 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09686 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:47:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AErbL-0001s1-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:47:11 -0500
Received: from natint2.juniper.net ([207.17.136.150] helo=merlot.juniper.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AErbL-0001rg-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:47:11 -0500
Received: from juniper.net (ssh3.juniper.net [207.17.136.47]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h9TEkdi52815; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:46:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kdubray@juniper.net)
Message-ID: <3F9FD2CE.4010409@juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:46:38 -0500
From: Kevin Dubray <kdubray@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-SillyDog)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Al Morton (E-mail)" <acmorton@att.com>
CC: bmwg@ietf.org, ipsec-term@external.cisco.com
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology
References: <496A8683261CD211BF6C0008C733261A03DBCC72@email.quarrytech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Al,

I hope your surgery went well and your recovery is speedy!

On the below topic, I missed the action item to which Scott alludes. :-)
(The only recollection I have of documentation production is a possible
Guidelines to Writing BMWG Methodologies...)

-Kevin

sporetsky@quarrytech.com wrote:
> Merike,
> 
> We are going to end up debating Packet Sizes for an "Imix" instead of IPsec
> benchmarking.  I would add to your list 40 bytes, 48 bytes, and 512 bytes
> packets.  40 and 48 bytes are common POS benchmarks and 512 bytes is a
> common packet size on the Internet.  
> 
> The Imix definition is not unique to IPsec.  It applies to many BMWG drafts
> and RFCs.  One alternative is to reference the phrase "a mix of packet
> sizes" in the IPsec draft and have it _defined_ in the General Benchmarking
> Terminology draft that Al and Kevin plan to write.  This addresses the
> problem globally and enables IPsec draft to make progress by putting the
> focus back on IPsec issues. 
> 
> BTW, Great talk at NANOG last week.


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