Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology

Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Wed, 29 October 2003 22:12 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10225 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:12:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEyXo-0002Pd-KG; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:12:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEyWx-0002ND-Tr for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:11:07 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10044 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:10:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEyWv-0004vB-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:11:05 -0500
Received: from almso1.att.com ([192.128.167.69] helo=almso1.proxy.att.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEyWu-0004tB-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:11:04 -0500
Received: from attrh2i.attrh.att.com ([135.37.94.56]) by almso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-5.0) with ESMTP id h9TM0h6p020278 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:10:34 -0500
Received: from custsla.mt.att.com (135.21.14.109) by attrh2i.attrh.att.com (6.5.032) id 3F92B64F0025B4E8 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:08:48 -0500
Received: from acmortonw.att.com ([135.210.17.38]) by custsla.mt.att.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h9TMNG125078 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:23:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20031029160225.02e41390@custsla.mt.att.com>
X-Sender: acm@custsla.mt.att.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:10:25 -0500
To: bmwg@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology
In-Reply-To: <3F9FD2CE.4010409@juniper.net>
References: <496A8683261CD211BF6C0008C733261A03DBCC72@email.quarrytech.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
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>

Benchmarkers all,

This morning, a message "escaped" from the Co-chair's tunnel.
No damage, but a few clarifications are in order:

* While the "IMIX" discussion was blossoming on our list, I
was completely off-line: knee surgery in-progress.
They removed a huge bone chip, possibly from an ancient skiing
accident, and I expect to be mobile again soon.

* Kevin and I have discussed authoring a
"Guidelines for Writing BMWG Methodologies" memo, to help the WG achieve
clear(er) specifications.  In thinking about what this memo might be
comprised of, I mentioned (to Scott Poretsky) that it might help to
collect some fundamental terms of our art, such as Black Box.
These terms will all have been agreed during preparation of an
earlier RFC where they were first needed/defined.
We don't have a schedule for the "Guidelines" memo.

So, BMWG should continue the packet mix discussion to progress
the IPSec draft (where the consensus should be captured), and also
thinking broadly for general/future uses (the discussion clearly
does this).

sorry for any confusion,
Al


At 09:46 AM 10/29/2003 -0500, Kevin Dubray wrote:
>Hi Al,
>
>I hope your surgery went well and your recovery is speedy!
>
>On the below topic, I missed the action item to which Scott alludes. :-)
>(The only recollection I have of documentation production is a possible
>Guidelines to Writing BMWG Methodologies...)
>
>-Kevin
>
>sporetsky@quarrytech.com wrote:
>>Merike,
>>We are going to end up debating Packet Sizes for an "Imix" instead of IPsec
>>benchmarking.  I would add to your list 40 bytes, 48 bytes, and 512 bytes
>>packets.  40 and 48 bytes are common POS benchmarks and 512 bytes is a
>>common packet size on the Internet.
>>The Imix definition is not unique to IPsec.  It applies to many BMWG drafts
>>and RFCs.  One alternative is to reference the phrase "a mix of packet
>>sizes" in the IPsec draft and have it _defined_ in the General Benchmarking
>>Terminology draft that Al and Kevin plan to write.  This addresses the
>>problem globally and enables IPsec draft to make progress by putting the
>>focus back on IPsec issues.
>>BTW, Great talk at NANOG last week.
>


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