Subject: [bmwg] Action Items

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:49:25 -0400

BMWG
(mostly for I-D Editors)

As a Reminder, the Action Items (from the last meeting)
that still need some attention are listed below.

Al
bmwg chair

-----------------
BMWG ACTION ITEMS
-----------------

IPsec I-D announcements should be posted to the IPsec mailing list.

The Standard Security Paragraphs to be sent formally to the Security
Directorate for review.  SENT

Remaining IGP-Dataplane Convergence issue is the route withdrawal test case,
it was proposed to be removed by someone in the design team because it was
more "white box" and implementation specific.  (item was clarified further...)

Accelerated Stress memos need update to address current comments,
then WGLC.

For Protection Switch Benchmarking, the term "unimpaired packet"
was identified as needing a definition in the terminology.
(Al replied on this April 9, 2008)
Also, need to reconcile the definitions of "PLR" and Head-end.

Post the LDP-convergence drafts to the MPLS WG so that we wouldn't repeat
Scott's experience with the IGP drafts (*Authors* are asked to do this when
they are ready, since this isn't a bmwg work item yet). Also, consider the
LDP-IGP sync issue (has not been fully addressed in the protocol dev wgs).

Regarding the non-SIP specific metrics in the SIP draft, a possible resolution
may be to be to revise the names of the benchmarks to make them SIP-specific
(especially if they are anchored on SIP protocol events).

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

---

From: Rajiv Papneja <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:58:43 -0400

Hi Al,

> LDP-IGP sync issue (has not been fully addressed in the protocol dev wgs).

We will try to post the updated version soon in parallel to both BMWG, and
MPLS working group to solicit comments. Do you recommend to solicit comments
on both terminology and meth together or only terminology to start with?
Regarding, LDP-IGP sync we are testing it this week with multiple vendors,
so as per my understanding there are implementations already. So we can
bring that feedback into the document as well.

Regards,
Rajiv

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:13:05 -0400

>on both terminology and meth together or only terminology to start with?

I think we want comments on both.
Al