Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology

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