Re: [bmwg] WG Last Call: OSPF convergence benchmarking

[Russ White <[e-mail]>]

I'll let the rest of the wg speak up, if they're still awake out there....

??

:-)

Russ

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Scott Poretsky wrote:

> The options we came up with were
>
> a. single router control plane convergence
> b. control plane convergence
> c. single router convergence
> d. convergence
>
> I like _a_.  While long, it is specific.  In our world of acronyms it will
> be reduced to srcpc anyway.
>
> What are the your votes?
>
> Scott
>
> At 11:32 AM 5/17/2003 -0400, Russ White wrote:
>
> >Oh, and if you think we should rename the draft to more closely relate to
> >the methodology draft, I'm fine with that. I don't want the entire working
> >group to the be stuck using "single router control plane convergence"
> >constantly in every doecument published.
> >
> >We should come to agreement that you can set the context in the naming and
> >the draft abstract, and then use the words that make the most sense within
> >the context thus set. I do like precise definitions, but using long phrases
> >to replace a single word in the name of precision I find annoying as a
> >reader.
> >
> >Russ
> >
> >On Sat, 17 May 2003, Russ White wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > >I would prefer to leave the discussion with the references. It would be
> > > > >easier to read, and more logical.
> > > >
> > > > OK.  Then put it all in "Existing Terms".
> > >
> > > That's fine... Will do.
> > >
> > > > Re-read what you wrote in the draft.  Incremental-SPF does not contribute
> > > > anything to the Black-Box tests nor White-Box tests.  The same White-Box
> > > > discussion can be made successfully without mentioning Incremental-SPF.
> > >
> > > They can be made without mentioning it, but the statement is made that
> > > there are things in an spf implementation which do impact the run times of
> > > spf, and may not be apparent from the outside. Either I can give no example
> > > here, or I need to give an example, to edify the readers of the draft of
> > > what sort of thing we are talking about.
> > >
> > > I looked at all possible enhachements (changing the sort on the tent,
> > > PRC, iSPF, and others), and concluded that I could explain iSPF in the
> > > shortest period, without delving into a lot of technical detail. Since iSPF
> > > is not implementation specific, as far as I know, I still don't see the
> > > problem with including it as an example, and providing a short explanation
> > > of what it is to readers.
> > >
> > > > Please be aware that there is currently a call to accept IGP Data Plane
> > > > Convergence Benchmarking as work items.
> > >
> > > I know that, my point is that this is not a data plane draft, and it
> > > clearly states this up front, in the draft. Since the terminology draft
> > > clearly relates to the methodology draft, I don't understand what the issue
> > > is with allowing the context to determine the meaning.
> > >
> > > > BMWG-ers have made it clear on the mailing list that Data Plane
> > > > Convergence is of far more interest than Control Plane convergence.
> > >
> > > That's fine, but I find it more useful to be able to characterize them
> > > seperately. My experience, partially embodied in the network benchmarking
> > > considerations draft, is that you can't really do justice to understanding
> > > a network unless you understand both the micro and macro issues.
> > >
> > > > >We decided to narrow the focus of the draft because of our
> > experience with
> > > > >other drafts that tend to cover a large area and take forever to get
> > > > >through the working group. It's easier to split the problem up into
> > smaller
> > > > >problems, and get the job done one piece at a time, than to try and boil
> > > > >the ocean.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree to take this approach when it results in a document so diluted
> > > > that is not of practical application.
> > >
> > > Narrowing normally concentrates, rather than dilutes.... If you think the
> > > draft is too narrow, that's fine. I'd rather leave it seperate, and let the
> > > next step be doing the interarea stuff. OSPF on an ABR or ASBR is a
> > > different beast than OSPF in pure intraarea environments.
> > >
> > > I prefer chewing smaller bites, rather than larger ones, if at all
> > > possible.
> > >
> > > Russ
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > [e-mail] CCIE <>< Grace Alone
> > >
> > >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >[e-mail] CCIE <>< Grace Alone
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >bmwg mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>
>

__________________________________
[e-mail] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg