Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology

Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Wed, 29 October 2003 22:28 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 RAA11141 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:28:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEynK-0003Ux-PW; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:28:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEynE-0003UT-SA for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:27:56 -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 RAA11118 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:27:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEynC-0005Ll-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:27:54 -0500
Received: from ckmso2.att.com ([209.219.209.75] helo=ckmso2.proxy.att.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEynC-0005L0-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:27:54 -0500
Received: from attrh3i.attrh.att.com ([135.38.62.9]) by ckmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-5.0) with ESMTP id h9TMHgOd020231 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:27:24 -0500
Received: from custsla.mt.att.com (135.21.14.109) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (6.5.032) id 3F9BFEAB001159D4; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:25:50 -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 h9TMe6125094; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:40:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20031029171230.02e4db80@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 17:27:18 -0500
To: Tim Van Herck <herckt@cisco.com>
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology
Cc: bmwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3FA02D25.6030007@cisco.com>
References: <F4CCF42A318CE3448ACA172CB087AF230612993B@DGEXCH04.mcilink.com> <F4CCF42A318CE3448ACA172CB087AF230612993B@DGEXCH04.mcilink.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>

Tim, Brian, all,
At 01:12 PM 10/29/2003 -0800, Tim Van Herck wrote:
>>... I still vote for number 2, simply define the general concept of a mixed
>>packet stream (in a general benchmarking terminology document so that the
>>definition carries across all BMWG efforts) and require that the stream be
>>clearly defined to include not only packet size distribution but the
>>interleaving pattern and any other parameters that may further characterize
>>the nature of the stream.
>
>We'll do that ! Unless anybody has another opinion about it ...

Speaking as a participant, it strikes me that all sizes used
in #2 -a- mix should also be tested as a fixed-size stream.
This may help to explain an odd result, and possibly foster
comparison (by limiting the number sizes in the mix).

Al




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