RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology

Merike Kaeo <kaeo@merike.com> Tue, 28 October 2003 23:22 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 SAA06786 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:22:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEdA1-0006Uo-Cx; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:22:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AEd9I-0006Mj-1w for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:21:16 -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 SAA06700 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:21:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEd9F-0002TW-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:21:13 -0500
Received: from [208.201.152.19] (helo=modus.surfnetusa.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AEd9E-0002TT-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:21:12 -0500
Received: from seabreeze.merike.com (unverified [4.33.105.153]) by modus.surfnetusa.com (Vircom SMTPRS 2.1.258) with ESMTP id <B0020185755@modus.surfnetusa.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:21:11 -0800
Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20031028151233.00b4fbc8@mail.merike.com>
X-Sender: kaeo@merike.com@mail.merike.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:21:00 -0800
To: sporetsky@quarrytech.com, sporetsky@quarrytech.com, brian.talbert@mci.com, mbustos@ixiacom.com, bmwg@ietf.org
From: Merike Kaeo <kaeo@merike.com>
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Meeting Minutes Review: IPsec Terminology
Cc: ipsec-term@external.cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <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>

>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.

ok....I agree having  the mix defined generally is a better solution 
overall.  I would hate for the benchmarking docs for IPsec get hung up on 
test packet size debates :)  One would hope that people are getting smarter 
and asking for what packet sizes were tested when looking at perfomance 
data and comparing numbers.......

- merike


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