Re: [bmwg] WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg)
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 21 October 2010 21:23 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 429D73A6848; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.403
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.643, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, 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 4MCVhx9JMtpq; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6843A6845; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.158] (sn87.proper.com [75.101.18.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9LLOrHT061519 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:24:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240812c8e65e8dd610@[10.20.30.158]>
In-Reply-To: <20101021210538.532A33A68A0@core3.amsl.com>
References: <20101021210538.532A33A68A0@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:24:52 -0700
To: iesg@ietf.org
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: acmorton@att.com, 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: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:23:22 -0000
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