Re: [bmwg] Fwd: Tentative Agenda for BMWG at IETF-57

Kevin Dubray <> Mon, 07 July 2003 20:18 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13045 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcQy-0002BH-GO; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:18:00 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcQd-00028Z-DJ for; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:39 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12999 for <>; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:17:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcQb-00028i-00 for; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:37 -0400
Received: from ([] by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZcQa-00028O-00 for; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:17:36 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h67KFlu94848; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:15:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:15:47 -0400
From: Kevin Dubray <>
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: Scott Poretsky <>
CC: Al Morton <>,,
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Fwd: Tentative Agenda for BMWG at IETF-57
References: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Scott Poretsky wrote:
 > In Atlanta, Jerry presented "Automatic Protection Switching Benchmark
 > Terminology".  We had a 15 minute discussion.  The group concluded with
 > Kevin's agreement and affirmation that the proposed work was too broad
 > and MPLS should not be addressed in the same document as SONET APS and
 > RPR.  I am open to the MPLS Protection Methodology being covered under
 > this work item or considered a separate work item.  I guess we can
 > revisit it at the meeting.

 From the Atlanta BMWG minutes:

"Since protection could happen at various layers (or sub-layers), such as
SONET or MPLS, there was a discussion on how best to tackle this.  The
group gravitated to the idea that a single, common terminology document
with subsequent methodology documents for individual recovery
mechanisms (e.g., one for MPLS, one for APS, etc.) might be the way to go."

I believe the current effort proposes to conform to the above notions, no?
(I.e., single terminology spec; multiple, narrowly focused methodological

bmwg mailing list