Subject: Re: [bmwg] Revised Charter

From: "Barry Constantine" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 11:08:49 -0700

Hello,

Is this the draft of the MPLS methodology effort:

draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth-03.txt

I am very interested in this subject area.

Thanks,
Barry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Al Morton
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [bmwg] Revised Charter

BMWG,

As discussed at our last meeting, we plan to revise our charter
(minimally) to add some new work items and update all milestones.

Please reply with any comments by May 12, 2008.
Note that some author teams need to suggest dates for
expired milestones (see below).

thanks and regards,
Al
bmwg chair

-------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG)
...
Description of Working Group:

The major goal of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group is to make
a series of recommendations concerning the measurement of the
performance characteristics of various internetworking technologies;
further, these recommendations may focus on the systems or services
that are built from these technologies.

Each recommendation will describe the class of equipment, system, or
service being addressed; discuss the performance characteristics that
are pertinent to that class; clearly identify a set of metrics that aid
in the description of those characteristics; specify the methodologies
required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present the requirements
for the common, unambiguous reporting of benchmarking results.

To better distinguish the BMWG from other measurement initiatives in
the IETF, the scope of the BMWG is limited to technology
characterization using simulated stimuli in a laboratory environment.
Said differently, the BMWG does not attempt to produce benchmarks for
live, operational networks. Moreover, the benchmarks produced by this WG
shall strive to be vendor independent or otherwise have universal
applicability to a given technology class.

Because the demands of a particular technology may vary from
deployment to deployment, a specific non-goal of the Working Group is
to define acceptance criteria or performance requirements.

An ongoing task is to provide a forum for discussion regarding the
advancement of measurements designed to provide insight on the
operation inter-networking technologies.

In addition to its current work plan, the BMWG is explicitly tasked
to develop benchmarks and methodologies for the following technologies:

  * MPLS Forwarding:  Develop specific methods to characterize the
latency
    and forwarding performance of MPLS devices, extending the
fundamental
    recommendations of RFC 1242 and RFC 2544 to this networking
technology.

  * SIP Networking Devices: Develop new terminology and methods to
    characterize the key performance aspects of network devices using
SIP,
    including the signaling plane scale and service rates while
considering
    load conditions on both the signaling and media planes. This work
    will be harmonized with related SIP performance metric definitions
    prepared by the PMOL working group.

Goals and Milestones:
...
< lots of completed milestones, then >
...
Done	  	IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology to AD Review

REVISED
June 2008              IPsec Device Benchmarking Terminology to IESG
Review
June 2008              IPsec Device Benchmarking Methodology to IESG
Review

NEW
April 2009              Methodology for MPLS Forwarding to AD Review.
June 2009               Terminology for SIP Device Benchmarking to IESG
Review.
June 2009               Methodology for SIP Device Benchmarking to IESG
Review.

TO BE REVISED YET
Dec 2007                Net Traffic Control Benchmarking Methodology 
to AD Review.
Dec 2007                Router Accelerated Test Terminology to AD Review
Dec 2007                Router Accelerated Test Methodology to AD Review

Dec 2007                Router Accelerated Test Method for EBGP to AD
Review
Dec 2007                Router Accelerated Test Method for 
Operational Security to AD Review
Feb 2008                Terminology For Protection Benchmarking to AD
Review
Feb 2008                Methodology For Protection Benchmarking to AD
Review
Jul 2009                Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking 
Methodology to AD Review.

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

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 14:15:39 -0400

>draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth-03.txt

This draft was the basis for the proposal,
and 03 is the most recent version.

Al
bmwg chair

---

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 14:42:48 -0400

Hi Barry,

Thanks for your interest in our work. 
Let us know if you have any Q.

Cheers,
Rajiv 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Barry Constantine
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:09 PM
> To: Al Morton; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [bmwg] Revised Charter
> 
> Hello,
>

---

From: "Carol Davids" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 22:26:05 -0500

Al,

Thanks.  We should be able to revise the SIP Device Benchmarking Terminology
and Methodology drafts in the June time frame. 

Regards,

Carol 

Carol Davids
IIT
Office: 630-682-6024
Mobile: 630-292-9417
Email: [email-masked]
Web site: voip.itm.iit.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Al
Morton
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:01 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [bmwg] Revised Charter

BMWG,

thanks and regards,
Al
bmwg chair

---

From: Rajiv Papneja <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 08:08:02 -0400

Hello Al,

On 4/28/08 2:01 PM, "Al Morton" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Feb 2008                Terminology For Protection Benchmarking to AD Review
> Feb 2008                Methodology For Protection Benchmarking to AD Review

We plan to post the updated protection terminology draft this month followed
by methodology, and would like to propose WGLC in June, and complete the
cross-area review by August 2008. The IESG review being dependent on the
cross-area review, can be targeted for September 2008.

Please let us know if you agree with these milestone.

Regards,
Protection Author team

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 08:36:10 -0400

Thanks Rajiv.

Given that we haven't completed any WGLCs on this topic,
and bmwg usually needs two or more to reach consensus,
I would suggest a longer date. This is also due in part
to the many vacations in July and August - it's harder
to find people to do a review.  So, if the revised versions
show-up just in time for the IETF meeting, then there's
little chance of making the September deadline.

OTOH, if we have new versions addressing the existing
comments in the May or early June time-frame, we might be
able to get through the first WGLC, with the active review
templates completed by ~5 reviewers, etc., before IETF-72.
Then the Sept IESG review doesn't seem so difficult.

Does this seem likely?

Al
bmwg chair