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

From: Jim McQuaid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:16:35 -0000

Isn't there a "best practices" genre of RFC which might pertain?

Jim McQuaid

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Russ White
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 3:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?ch

> As interesting as this paper is, I always found it to be a tough fit for 
> the BMWG.  This proposed work item has no related terminology or 
> methodology draft.  The tests are not clearly described in the paper and 
> refer to the need to simulate hundreds of nodes for a lab benchmark test. 
> I went through the thread from last April '04 (6 months ago) and read 
> numerous responses in objection to this becoming a work item.  My mind is 
> open to be changed so can you please clearly explain what is being 
> benchmarked, how it is being benchmarked, and why you think this is 
> appropriate for the BMWG.

I suppose the question comes down to this: Is it worth having informational 
documents that provide general background and knoweldge gained from 
experience to people writing other testing documents, and actually running 
tests? Is the only thing the WG can publish actual tests, or can it also 
publish documents explaining how to test, in general, and other work in the 
area of benchmarking?

I would think informational documents about how to test in general, about 
methods and mechanisms, would also be useful.

:-)

Russ

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

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

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

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:23:53 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> 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

---

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:48:07 -0400

At 11:23 AM -0400 10/5/04, Russ White wrote:
>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?

As a possible but fairly ancient parallel, ANSI X3S35 (it's long 
enough ago that I _think_ that was our designation) developed X3.102, 
which could be thought of as a terminology and model document for 
user-oriented datacomm parameters, and then developed X3.141, which 
was a guide to statistical methods and other practical issues in 
doing X3.102 tests.

This work was later incorporated into CCITT/ITU X.130-X.140.

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:17:33 -0400 (EDT)

for what its worth, as one who helped make the decision

bmwg was for boxes, ippm was for networks

yes, bmwg has morphed over time but I do not think that ippm has

Scott

---

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:21:18 -0400

>yes, bmwg has morphed over time but I do not think that ippm has

Which brings up the question: where does a box belong when its 
performance can be tested only by interaction with other like boxes 
(i.e., iBGP)?

---

From: David Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:37:19 -0700 (PDT)

>> bmwg was for boxes, ippm was for networks
(snip)
>
> Which brings up the question: where does a box belong when its performance 
> can be tested only by interaction with other like boxes (i.e., iBGP)?
>

boxes (plural) != box

I've never heard it seriously suggested that multi-box testing is out of 
scope for bmwg. The distinction suggested by Scott and others is tests in 
labs vs. those on production networks.

dn

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:46:38 -0400 (EDT)

> performance can be tested only by interaction with other like boxes 

that was the morph I mentioned - hard to tell
bmwg did some work in teh general speace in the past if memory serves

Scott

---

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:50:12 -0400

>bmwg did some work in teh general speace in the past if memory serves

Are you suggesting that the Advisor to BMWG should be the 
reincarnation of Werner Heisenberg?

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:51:32 -0400 (EDT)

:-)

if he or she would agree

Scott

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:44:03 +0200 (CEST)

Hi all,

I missed the start of this thread and cannot find it in the archives, but:
which draft are we talking about?

> >bmwg was for boxes, ippm was for networks

Exactly.

> performance can be tested only by interaction with other like boxes

Still BMWG, one is looking at properties of the box, not of the network.

Henk (IPPM co-chair).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a room with a window in the corner, I found truth.            (Ian Curtis)