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

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:46:46 -0400

Now if we had as much energy put into developing the I-Ds as
arguing over their inclusion... :-)

For those wondering about the notion of plug-ins, please read section
6 of the BMWG minutes from San Diego.

The notion of coming up with follow-on work that is related but
methodologically not required for existing (or future) benchmarks leaves
us in a precarious position as a WG whose purpose is to come up
with standard-esque benchmarks. It surely confounds the problem
for our user community as not knowing which variant to use.  "Do
we execute the benchmark as specified RFC XXXX, or do we optionally
overlay the "techniques" offered in RFC YYYY."  For me, this is
the central issue.

(Russ, you'll also note from the minutes, the notion of BMWG not
becoming a parking lot for unwanted journal papers is from San Diego.
And it was one of the few things upon which there was consensus
that day. :-) I believe Scott was trying to relay that thought
as opposed to argumentum ad hominem.)

Moreover, as the charter janitor, here's some additional thoughts.

Please read the second paragraph of the charter.  It presents a
test for output documents of our WG.  As I read it, (and wrote it)
it means we write benchmarks. Now compare the second paragraph of
the charter to the second paragraph of the (expired) I-D's abstract.
(And if you've read neither, please withdraw from this discussion! :-)

As far as the "forum" part of the charter, well, we're doing that
right here on this mailing list.  An I-D is probably not the best
choice as a forum vehicle.  And as you can see, we haven't precluded
discussion of this individually-submitted I-D.  So, I'll conclude
that the forum part of the charter is working.

For my thinking, Russ presents some fine techniques. But I'm left
wondering, if they are so compelling, why isn't the effort
being applied to embed those techniques directly in existing
WG convergence works in progress directly? Perhaps, we should recall
the ospfconv* I-Ds from IESG review and rework them.

If the desire of test notes I-D is to change or
invalidate the stated methodology of existing benchmarks, then
we need to think about the appropriate hooks/actions to make that so.
If the desire of the test note is just to provide alternative
approaches, that can be effectively done as an individually submitted
I-D as anything else.  This is true of the hash-and-stuffing I-D,
too.

Putting my chair hat back on, it should be noted that in the 18 or
so months that this I-D has been presented to the WG, this is the
first real substantive(?) discussion we had on it.  Previous
attempts were marked by general indifference. (Check our
mail archive circa 11Feb04.)

-Kevin

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:55:22 -0400

>arguing over their inclusion... :-)

Apropos of that, is there anything that can be done to get the IESG 
to move on the BGP convergence terminology I-D?  Draft 5 was 
provisionally approved for RFC in April, the provisional status being 
contingent on editorial suggestions. It was the team's impression 
that making those changes, given provisional approval, would send the 
I-D to the RFC Editor queue.

Instead, the draft was reissued as -06. It's now October, and it 
currently shows as not scheduled on the I-D tracker.  Even Draft -05 
took well over six months to get in front of the IESG, apparently due 
in part to some people changing roles.

I don't know if other authors are experiencing such lengthy delays, 
but it now has been over a year since we finished what we considered 
complete, and 6 months and counting after we made the requested 
corrections. This much delay gets us to a point where some of our 
ideas may be overtaken by technology.

What will it take to blast this loose?  To feed back, a lot of energy 
went into developing this I-D, and it's frustrating that factors 
outside the WG are keeping it from becoming an RFC.

---

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 09:48:37 -0400

Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:

> Apropos of that, is there anything that can be done to get the IESG to 
> move on the BGP convergence terminology I-D? 

Al and I are working with the ADs to dispatch those I-Ds stuck in
state "IESG Evaluation."

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=search_list&search_job_owner=0&search_group_acronym=bmwg&search_status_id=&search_cur_state=&sub_state_id=6&search_filename=&search_rfcnumber=&search_area_acronym=&search_button=SEARCH

-Kevin