[ippm] Re: Joint BMWG/IPPM chartering

[[e-mail]]

Dear Tim,

Thanks a lot! These are very good points. As an individual, see inline my feedback and proposals how to address this in the proposed charter.

Best wishes
Thomas

From: Tim Chown <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 11:20 AM
To: Graf Thomas, SCS-INI-NET-VNC-E2E <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Joint BMWG/IPPM chartering

Be aware: This is an external email.

Hi,

I think this is a good, firm strawman and something that should definitely be taken forward. Thank you for the work in getting this far.

A few comments...

I don't understand the "the WG is responsible for documenting common security building blocks and guidance" line. What are these building blocks?  To someone just reading this charter, it's not clear.  Security of measurement protocols?  Measurement of security appliances?  Something else?

TG> Correct. This needs to be set into context. How about

Before:

The xxxx WG fosters commonality and comparability of metrics and measurements across IETF protocols at different layers. Also, the WG is responsible for documenting common security building blocks and guidance.

After:

The xxxx WG fosters commonality and comparability of metrics and measurements across IETF protocols at different layers. Also, the WG is responsible for documenting common security building blocks and guidance for methodologies and measurement protocols, including guidance on how to handle sensitive and vulnerable metrics.


I assume the nature of the work in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-qoo/ remains covered by the new charter. The text doesn't explicitly mention quality assessment frameworks and scoring.

Second, it would be a nice nod to Dave Täht to explicitly mention bufferbloat detection in the charter, with related work like in particular https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/.

TG> Both are good points which should be clearly mentioned. How about

Before:

The WG will also produce terminology documents and recommendations concerning the key performance characteristics of internetworking technologies, or benchmarks for network devices, systems, and services.

After:

The WG will also produce terminology documents and recommendations concerning the key performance characteristics of internetworking technologies, or benchmarks for network devices, systems, and services. This includes also quality assessment frameworks, scoring, and bufferbloat detection.

The related WGs (well, RGs) should probably include maprg, both for the work it does that may lead to new proposals for protocol work, and its testing of drafts/protocols under development in the new combined WG.

TG> I think the relationship with MAPRG falls under collaboration and therefore could be mentioned like this:

Before:

The WG closely collaborates with the Performance Metrics Directorate per the guidance in BCP 170.

After:

The WG closely collaborates with the Performance Metrics Directorate per the guidance in BCP 170 and also with MAPRG.

And considering something I'm involved with at the moment, is measurement of jumbo frame MTU operation in scope for this WG, e.g., testing for 9000 MTU end-to-end?   It's not clear to me from reading the text.  Do we need to add any paragraph about what's NOT in scope, or do we leave it up to the WG to decide what it can adopt?

TG> From my point of few, this is already to detailed for a charter item. Perhaps others have a different opinion.

I've not added these as issues.

TG> Let me know your thoughts and suggestions on the proposals. I can add them then to the issues: https://github.com/ietf-ippm/wg-charter/issues

Tim

On 26/04/2026, 09:02, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Dear BMWG and IPPM,

On behalf of the chairs. At IETF 125 we had a public joint chartering session onsite. In that session and during the discussion afterwards, we consolidated and simplified the existing charters

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/about/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ippm/about/

for a new joint charter proposal

https://github.com/ietf-ippm/wg-charter/blob/main/ippm-bmwg-joint.md

Out of this exercise we highlight that the following items are specific to BMWG or IPPM today:

- applications running over public and private networks
- including endpoints in production and lab environments. Where in lab environments the testing procedures ensure consistent, reproducible, and reportable benchmarking results.
- The WG will also produce terminology documents and recommendations concerning the key performance characteristics of internetworking technologies, or benchmarks for network devices, systems, and services.

We added new items to the charter based on recent working group discussions

-           IETF protocols at different layers
-           documenting common security building blocks
-           The WG will also produce terminology documents and recommendations
-           the WG will specify related manageability aspects, such as YANG data models for configuration, operation, and Network Telemetry data export
-           Layer 2 applications can be covered as well but require explicit approval from the Responsible Area Director.
-           It specifically coordinates with other WGs such as MPLS, 6MAN, and SPRING where data plane encapsulations are specified.
-           The WG liaises with other Standards Development Organizations such as ITU-T, IEEE, 3GPP, and BBF and reaches out to other operator communities such as NANOG, RIPE, and APRICOT.

Many thanks to Carsten, Luis, Med, Qin, Marcus, Giuseppe and Sarah for this proposal.

We would like to get reviews and feedback on the joint charter proposal from both working groups. And in particular, we also invite BMWG and IPPM authors to check whether the newly proposed joint charter covers their work accurately.

-           Do you believe that this joint charter covers your existing and future work?
-           Do you believe it describes and scopes accurately the current and future work of both working groups?
-           Is something missing or should be omitted? Why?

Please comment on this thread and also feel free to open change proposals here: https://github.com/ietf-ippm/wg-charter/issues

We intend to follow up also with the MPLS, 6MAN, and SPRING working groups once this discussion is stabilizing.

Best wishes
Qin, Giuseppe, Sarah, Marcus and Thomas