RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> Tue, 05 October 2004 15:45 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08911 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:45:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CErU9-0002hM-W5; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:44:18 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CErPG-0001zv-7F for bmwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:39:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA08460 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:39:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CErYX-0006LV-9A for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:48:51 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Oct 2004 11:38:41 -0400
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from cisco.com (shako.cisco.com [64.102.17.78]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i95FccED018946; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:38:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from russpc.Whitehouse.intra (rtp-vpn3-421.cisco.com [10.82.217.167]) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA06755; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:38:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:37:50 -0400
From: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com>
To: sporetsky@quarrytech.com
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch
In-Reply-To: <496A8683261CD211BF6C0008C733261A04D3B028@email.quarrytech.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.61.0410051133100.3196@russpc.Whitehouse.intra>
References: <496A8683261CD211BF6C0008C733261A04D3B028@email.quarrytech.com>
X-X-Sender: ruwhite@shako.cisco.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
Cc: hcb@gettcomm.com, jim.mcquaid@netiq.com, bmwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-bounces@ietf.org

Okay, the outline of the current network benchmarking considerations draft 
is:

-- Definitions, various definitions possible for each term, and how they 
might be used differently in different contexts. This is important in 
something of this type, since it would help to unify a lot of the issues we 
have over these sorts of definitions within the WG.

-- Various Techniques for Measuring Convergence. This includes a section on 
polling, and passing traffic through a network to measure convergence. Good 
topics, could probably be expanded.

Any other suggestions? What would you add?

Again, thoughts are welcome--what does anyone else in the WG think? Should 
we start a BP doc for testing network convergence? What are other areas we 
should include? I think it's an excellent idea, it would broaden the 
usefulness of the output of the WG tremendously.

So far:

Russ: in favor
Jim: ??, but appears to be in favor
Scott: ??, but appears to not be in favor

:-)

Russ

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 sporetsky@quarrytech.com wrote:

> I think that before selecting the core document of a BCP effort we would
> need to scope and outline the BCP effort.  Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ White [mailto:ruwhite@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:24 AM
> To: Jim McQuaid
> Cc: sporetsky@quarrytech.com; hcb@gettcomm.com; bmwg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch
>
>
>
>> Isn't there a "best practices" genre of RFC which might pertain?
>
> Actually, you've hit the nail on the head. What would hte WG think of
> taking on creating a BCP for testing, and using this doc as the core of
> that effort? That fits what this doc is driving at better than an
> informational, and it certainly doesn't fit into the concept of an actual
> set of tests, defined, etc.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> :-)
>
> Russ
>
>
> __________________________________
> riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone
>

__________________________________
riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone


_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg