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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:23:34 -0400

There is definitely a context in which it would be useful to discuss the
value of working "general" testing papers to become RFC.  However, I do not
consider your paper to cover "general" testing.  I believe it is specific to
measuring network convergence when there are hundreds of nodes.  

While being open minded to considering this work item I am wary about the
BMWG becoming an orphanage for rejected IEEE test papers.  

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Russ White [mailto:[email-masked]]
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

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:40:37 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> value of working "general" testing papers to become RFC.  However, I do 
> not consider your paper to cover "general" testing.  I believe it is 
> specific to measuring network convergence when there are hundreds of 
> nodes.

Hmmm.... And I don't agree. The examples in the draft all have just a few 
nodes, and they don't specifically apply to large numbers of nodes. But, 
this implies you don't think a benchmark could/should be done with more 
than a small number of nodes. In this vein, should the BMWG charter be 
changed to state only tests which cover less than x nodes will be 
considered? There are no labs in which large scale benchmarks are 
performed?

> BMWG becoming an orphanage for rejected IEEE test papers.

Thank you for you frankness. I'll take this to informational through the 
indivual submission, and probably stop contributing to this working group, 
since it sess no value in actually discussing methods used to test 
networks. Perhaps it's time to start a working group to actually discuss 
benchmarking methodologies, and the various issues with testing network 
convergence, rather than just terminology drafts.

That's a sad point of view, is all I can say.

Russ

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:44:19 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> While being open minded to considering this work item I am wary about 
> the BMWG becoming an orphanage for rejected IEEE test papers.

And, by the way, this draft wasn't ever submitted to IEEE. Too bad you 
can't even insult someone's work on a factual basis.

Again, this working group it _so_ tied up in terminology, and specifics, 
that it can't see the forest for the trees. That's really, really sad, 
since there's so much work to be done in this area, if you'd just open your 
eyes once in a while.

Russ