Subject: Re: [bmwg] Draft Minutes from IETF-62 for review

From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:47:02 -0500

At 11:48 AM -0500 3/21/05, Al Morton wrote:
>
>---------------------------------------------
>Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg)
>
>TUESDAY, March 8, 2005, 0900-1130
>=======================================
>
>CHAIRS: Kevin Dubray <kdubray (at) juniper.net>
>          Al Morton <acmorton (at) att.com>
>
>About 30 people attended the session in person, with several more

[snip]

>4.  Tech. for Benchmarking Core Router Accelerated Life Testing (S.Poretsky)
>http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-term-05.txt
>http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-acc-bench-meth-02.txt
>
>The Terminology & Methodology I-Ds were revised on comments.
>Scott summarized the changes in these drafts. The Terminology was
>clarified with a figure, and there are six new test cases in
>the Methodology (where some additional work is planned).
>He asked if the group was ready to begin the WGLC process on the Terms,
>and this seems to be plausible. However, there were comments on the
>Whitebox terms in Appendix I, where a uniform standard for describing
>memory is needed (only CPU memory was intended).  Regarding the
>Methodology, there were several comments and questions from the floor:
>
>-  Suggestions for new test cases: Security, Authentication,
>Encryption, IPv6 Tunnel, Policy Case with filters and ACLs.
>-  With so many test cases, the memo needs to organize them into groups
>(e.g., all BGP cases). Tests could be grouped by purpose and split into
>different drafts. It was suggested to start with the generic test cases
>for simplicity and follow-up with more specific cases in separate memos.
>-  Section 4.6, method with Route Flap Dampening specifies DEFAULT
>parameters, but this needs clarification, perhaps a single set of values
>will lead to simpler comparison. RFC 2439 should be referenced.
>-  Each benchmark collected needs a method of measurement specified,
>beyond the procedures given in the memo. For example, there is no method
>to collect "Recovered Sessions Lost". The exact methods to measure
>time intervals and rates are not defined.

FYI, the OPSEC WG is defining core ISP filters, and, on the mailing 
list, there's been mention of wanting benchmarking.

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 15:42:26 -0500

Don Smith, George Jones, and Fred Budd have already been in touch with me.
They think that the Accelerated Life Stress Testing work item synchronizes
very well with their benchmarking goals.  The BMWG idea to break the
methodology document into a series of separate documents with each focused
on a technology seems to be an excellent decision because it will facilitate
incorporation of ideas from other working groups such as OPSEC.  More
details of discussions with OPSEC to follow.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 12:47 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Draft Minutes from IETF-62 for review

[snip]