RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch
sporetsky@quarrytech.com Tue, 05 October 2004 20:45 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 QAA10048 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:45:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEw73-0003Yr-2w; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:40:45 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CEvws-0007qW-VP for bmwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:30:15 -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 QAA07685 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:30:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: sporetsky@quarrytech.com
Received: from email.quarrytech.com ([4.17.144.4] helo=qtech1.quarrytech.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CEw6E-0008Tf-Vs for bmwg@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:39:55 -0400
Received: by email.quarrytech.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <N87X5BXV>; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:29:43 -0400
Message-ID: <496A8683261CD211BF6C0008C733261A04D3B03A@email.quarrytech.com>
To: riw@cisco.com, jim.mcquaid@netiq.com
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:29:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2086112c730e13d5955355df27e3074b
Cc: hcb@gettcomm.com, sporetsky@quarrytech.com, bmwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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
Which is the preferred working group is a worthwhile discussion to continue. The other item worth discussing is the goal of the work item. This is important because it helps guide the action items to the point that the wg knows when it is done. We know that you have proposed a BCP for network convergence that will not include Methodology. Your focus is "to provide guidance to testers". How will this be achieved? What will be covered? How would we know when it is done? BTW, A lot of the questions being asked with this thread are typically covered in a Working Group Proposal. Maybe it would be beneficial to complete that for this proposed work item. Scott -----Original Message----- From: Russ White [mailto:ruwhite@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 3:11 PM 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 > This thread is tending toward the "polemic." I suggest we all obtain and > read the current charters for the WGs in question. A charter can always > be amended, but it's a good starting point. So, let's start with this: IPPM is in the transport working group, while BMWG is in operations. That seems to imply something different than anything said on this thread, thus far. IPPM seems to deal with traffic flow measurement, the measurement of transport, while BMWG seems to deal with network measurement, in terms of benchmarking. So, from this angle, a best practices on routing protocols convergence wouldn't fit within IPPM, since it's not a transport issue at all. > I think the issue isn't so much "real world networks" versus "lab > networks." The original IPPM / BMWG split might be better thought of in > terms of audience. IPPM was for network operators & planners. BMWG was > one element of that, of course, but clearly *was* started with an eye > toward providing a standard to replace manufacturers marketing claims > back at the start of the router wars, so it was element-oriented and > somewhat more enterprise useful compared to network operator useful. Even in terms of this, all the users of the tests you're talking about, the people using the products of the BMWG to evaluate vendor's testing, would be network operators, correct? So, that split doesn't make much sense to me, either, based on the terms listed here. If such a best practices document were to serve as guidance to test developers, I don't see where the conflict with what you're saying above comes in. Now, finally, to the charters themselves. IPPM's charter says: -- The IPPM WG will produce documents that define specific metrics and procedures for accurately measuring and documenting these metrics. The metrics are: - connectivity - one-way delay and loss - round-trip delay and loss - delay variation - loss patterns - packet reordering - bulk transport capacity - link bandwidth capacity -- I don't see anything in there about routing protocols convergence, which is what the draft in question is/would be, if we continue to work on it. BTW--to make certain we come to agreement on at least this one point--the draft in question is about routing protocols convergence. Is there anyone who reads something else into it? There's a section on measuring routing protocols convergence through traffic flow, but that's no different than draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-03.txt. In fact, I don't see this document as being any different than draft-ietf-bmwg-hash-stuffing-00.txt, which is already a working group document. If we reject this document on those grounds, then the WG should reconsider the acceptance of those two documents, as well. Based on IPPM's charter (quoted above) and area (transport), there's no way a routing protocols document would fit there. Now, let's turn to BMWG's charter: -- The major goal of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group is to make a series of recommendations concerning the measurement of the performance characteristics of various internetworking technologies; further, these recommendations may focus on the systems or services that are built from these technologies. .... An ongoing task is to provide a forum for discussion regarding the advancement of measurements designed to provide insight on the operation internetworking technologies. -- I assume there's a missing "of" in the last sentence quoted above. Now, since this draft does/would apply to in the lab benchmarks, their construction and understanding their results, about specifically about an internetworking technology (routing protocols), and their performance.... I just don't see how this doesn't fit into the BMWG charter as it sits today. The last paragraph certainly implies this as well. I don't read anything in the charter that limits the BMWG to only specific point tests, nor do I see anything placing routing protocols within IPPM's charter. Does anyone see anything different in this? :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list bmwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Jim McQuaid
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D? scott bradner
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Russ White
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… sporetsky
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Russ White
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… sporetsky
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Russ White
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Russ White
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Jim McQuaid
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D? Howard C. Berkowitz
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Russ White
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… sporetsky
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Russ White
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Michele Bustos
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… sporetsky
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… sporetsky
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Michele Bustos
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Russ White
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Jim McQuaid
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Russ White
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Robert Holley (rholley)
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… sporetsky
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D? Howard C. Berkowitz
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D? scott bradner
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D? Howard C. Berkowitz
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D? David Newman
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D? scott bradner
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D… Russ White
- RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D? Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)