Subject: QoS Benchmarking Proposal

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:24:09 -0500

BMWG:

With all the emails, phone calls, and smoke signals I've received over the 
last 72 hours, I'm starting to think we should let the watchdog timers 
expire a little more often around here. ;-)

Some thoughts -

To those who didn't know that anything was expected of them with regards
to the proposal's Last Call:  Last Calls are accepted practice with this and
other working groups.  Moreover, the announcement of the Last Call had rather
clear wording:

  > "If you feel that the WG should undertake this new work as proposed,  
  >  please respond to this list or [email-masked]."  

To those who believe that QoS Benchmarking would generally be a Good Thing:

That's nice, BUT the last call asked whether the BMWG should engage
in the new work as currently defined by Messrs. Poretsky's and Newman's 
PROPOSAL. The purpose of the proposal was to crisply identify the 
problem set to be solved as well as to define the effort's scope and 
approach in addressing a solution.  With this information, it was hoped
that expedient progress could be made toward well targeted I-Ds.

And while there appears to be plenty of interest, I still maintain
there doesn't appear to be consensus (rough or otherwise) for the WG to 
adopt the work as originally proposed.  
 
Here's how we'll proceed:  A Last Call on the proposal will be re-issued the
week after the Adelaide meeting.  Please use the interim time to 
discuss and, if need be, to suggest modifications to the current PROPOSAL.   
The proposers should feel free to adjust and reissue the proposal to 
better reflect some of the issues currently being discussed (e.g., intended 
loss versus unintended loss, inclusion of the non-metric terminology, 
end-to-end vs device testing, etc.).  If face time is needed to discuss, 
please ask for an agenda item at the Adelaide meeting.

And lastly, there is plenty of existing BMWG work requiring your attention.
The editors of the LAN switch methodology draft and the Multicast methodology
draft are working hard to bring their drafts to last call status.  There
are new ATM methodology and ATM ABR and Frame Relay terminology I-Ds, too.
Please contribute early and often to these efforts as well.

-Kevin

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:46:56 -0800

with the current schedule, the iesg could not even review the charter change
until after adelaide.  so not to panic.

randy