IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] WG Adoption Call: Considerations for Benchmarking Network Performance in Containerized Infrastructures

"sbanks@encrypted.net" <sbanks@encrypted.net> Tue, 23 January 2024 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <sbanks@encrypted.net>
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 6D476C14F705 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 06:11:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.703
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=encrypted.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wRwa5gMsExKA for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 06:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xyz.hosed.org (xyz.hosed.org [71.114.67.91]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 165C3C14F6F7 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 06:11:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xyz.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A159E19C3864; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:11:48 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at xyz.hosed.org
Received: from xyz.hosed.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xyz.hosed.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fw6bj3oIMq0Y; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:11:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-67-170-253-92.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.170.253.92]) by xyz.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 493F619C11D6; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:11:48 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=encrypted.net; s=default; t=1706019108; bh=jOeTUKz85W3BioFkhtgesuDTLhXgwMTZs+Dd51aYqks=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=DGPX1ScsHPXLPZ49dNA/SEdFley1t4MfCpxYeluPWyu0Z6FE0qdpVv+FMQxoBdUB2 w9mvvWYXL+77OJdy9D71Mw6R0POUP2rn01r45CbkVsV3AC+HegT82brcjnV0IemjVr 2o2+MYF3spGLJaDaqM1zjJ8IDTrKHy8yE8shiK+w=
From: "sbanks@encrypted.net" <sbanks@encrypted.net>
Message-Id: <37226B3A-64FC-4D1F-AE50-7225EF7CD079@encrypted.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F7E48349-AE04-4C18-B9B6-3A7D5F30E60D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.400.51.1.1\))
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 06:11:37 -0800
In-Reply-To: <2ECC137F-1963-416F-9B59-DE9A56E8D540@encrypted.net>
Cc: bmwg <bmwg@ietf.org>
To: sbanks@encrypted.net
References: <B4C61BA6-541E-4429-B379-C9D8C57C1C83@encrypted.net> <2ECC137F-1963-416F-9B59-DE9A56E8D540@encrypted.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.400.51.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/eyajH1lISLDmgBiO_ykeXracYLw>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] WG Adoption Call: Considerations for Benchmarking Network Performance in Containerized Infrastructures
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:11:54 -0000

Folks,
	I apologize; this was the message I meant to send for the other draft! The confusion is all mine. We are announcing the ADOPTION of this draft; I’ll make the change in data tracker shortly. I look forward to updates at IETF 119!

Thank you,
Sarah

> On Jan 23, 2024, at 6:09 AM, sbanks@encrypted.net wrote:
> 
> Hello BMWG,
> 	Following up on the WGLC for the "Considerations for Benchmarking Network Performance in Containerized Infrastructures” draft. There was reasonable support for this document on the list, and we’ll start the WGLC process. Thank you all for your readership, feedback, and discussion during the face-to-face meetings. Authors, please reach out to me with any questions you have.
> 
> Thank you,
> Sarah
> BMWG Co-Chair
> 
>> On Dec 6, 2023, at 1:12 PM, sbanks@encrypted.net wrote:
>> 
>> Hello BMWG,
>> 	I just sent out a note asking the WG to consider a WGLC, and this note is a call for adoption of a draft that’s been reasonably well reviewed and discussed by the WG. I’d like to run both of these in parallel.
>> 
>> 	This message begins a WG Adoption call for:
>> 
>> 		Considerations for Benchmarking Network Performance in Containerized Infrastructures
>> 		https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dcn-bmwg-containerized-infra/
>> 
>> 
>> 	The WG Adoption call will run from December 7 to January 4, 2024. Please review the latest draft and send comments and/or indications of support to the BMWG mailing list (bmwg@ietf.org <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>).
>> 
>> For the co-chairs,
>> Sarah
>> _______________________________________________
>> bmwg mailing list
>> bmwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email