RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

Now we have evolved to the request to make a BCP for measuring network
convergence.  I have to ask a question first asked last April regarding this
work - Why is the IPPM not the best place to discuss this work?  In
addition, for the benefit of the BMWG could you please clearly explain what
is being benchmarked, how it is being benchmarked, and why you think this is
appropriate for the BMWG.  Please note that at this time I am neither "for"
or "against" this becoming a work item.  However, I would like to read
answers to these basic questions so I can make an informed personal
decision.  We eagerly await your answers to these basic questions.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ White [mailto:ruwhite@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:38 AM
To: sporetsky@quarrytech.com
Cc: jim.mcquaid@netiq.com; hcb@gettcomm.com; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

Okay, the outline of the current network benchmarking considerations draft 
is:

-- Definitions, various definitions possible for each term, and how they 
might be used differently in different contexts. This is important in 
something of this type, since it would help to unify a lot of the issues we 
have over these sorts of definitions within the WG.

-- Various Techniques for Measuring Convergence. This includes a section on 
polling, and passing traffic through a network to measure convergence. Good 
topics, could probably be expanded.

Any other suggestions? What would you add?

Again, thoughts are welcome--what does anyone else in the WG think? Should 
we start a BP doc for testing network convergence? What are other areas we 
should include? I think it's an excellent idea, it would broaden the 
usefulness of the output of the WG tremendously.

So far:

Russ: in favor
Jim: ??, but appears to be in favor
Scott: ??, but appears to not be in favor

:-)

Russ

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 sporetsky@quarrytech.com wrote:

> I think that before selecting the core document of a BCP effort we would
> need to scope and outline the BCP effort.  Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ White [mailto:ruwhite@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:24 AM
> 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
>
>
>
>> Isn't there a "best practices" genre of RFC which might pertain?
>
> Actually, you've hit the nail on the head. What would hte WG think of
> taking on creating a BCP for testing, and using this doc as the core of
> that effort? That fits what this doc is driving at better than an
> informational, and it certainly doesn't fit into the concept of an actual
> set of tests, defined, etc.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> :-)
>
> Russ
>
>
> __________________________________
> riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone
>

__________________________________
riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone

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