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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:29:45 -0400

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:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:24 AM
To: Jim McQuaid
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
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

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

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

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:37:50 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

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