IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Sun, 21 October 2018 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <acm@research.att.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B97A130E74 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 11:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_DYNAMIC=1.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eUren4OoDkQr for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 11:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0951128CF2 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 11:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0083689.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w9LIYqoB019204 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:42:57 -0400
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2n8e54h539-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:42:57 -0400
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9LIguaB025768 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 13:42:56 -0500
Received: from zlp30494.vci.att.com (zlp30494.vci.att.com [135.46.181.159]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9LIgpG2025668 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 13:42:51 -0500
Received: from zlp30494.vci.att.com (zlp30494.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30494.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 744ED40004A8 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:42:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30494.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 4EC4C400048E for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:42:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9LIgoO3017972 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 13:42:51 -0500
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (mail-green.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9LIgmdO017917 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 13:42:48 -0500
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9C6E1C32 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:39:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:42:04 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance
Thread-Index: AdRpbQmISVir3THXT3m9iQjUgXW92gAAGu6g
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:42:03 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF557A38BD@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.197.229.135]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-10-21_13:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1810210171
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/aNTc-lVPNyWkUipvqhuLLdprwSE>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:43:00 -0000

BMWG,

As we consider this draft, I have the following administrative
questions to discuss.

Al
bmwg co-chair

Benchmarking Methodology Working Group                      B. Balarajah
Internet-Draft                                           C. Rossenhoevel
Intended status: Informational                                  EANTC AG
Expires: January 3, 2019                                    July 2, 2018
[acm]
Admin questions: 
Will this draft Update or Replace or make Obsolete RFC3511?
The WG should be clear about this aspect, it can't be omitted IMO.
(question, is any part of 3511 referenced here?)
Will this work benefit from Early SEC-DIR review?
WIll this work benefit from early APPS-DIR review? (especially HTTPS/browser aspects)
Will this work benefit from TSV-AREA review? (TCP aspects, other transport...)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 2:39 PM
> To: bmwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Call for adoption: draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance
> 
> BMWG,
> 
> At our three meetings so far this year, the BMWG reviewed a version of
> the Internet Draft on
> 
> Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-05
> 
> The BMWG has already adopted a milestone on our charter:
> 
> Aug 2018 	Methodology for Next-Gen Firewall Benchmarking to IESG Review
> (in retrospect, this milestone was quite aspirational!)
> 
> This message, therefore, starts a call for adoption on:
> 
> Benchmarking Methodology for Network Security Device Performance
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balarajah-bmwg-ngfw-performance-05
> 
> to run until Friday, November 9, 2018.
> 
> Please reply to bmwg@ietf.org indicating:
> 
> (1) whether you support the adoption of the draft
>    as the basis document for the existing milestone
> 
> (2) whether you commit to reviewing the WG document if adopted
> 
> 
> thanks for your consideration of the draft, and regards,
> 
> Al
> bmwg co-chair

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email