From acmorton@att.com Fri Oct 1 06:19:37 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39A63A6C8A for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:19:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.628 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LIAzF6AHadcy for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail129.messagelabs.com (mail129.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8236C3A6BFA for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:19:36 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1285939223!17105844!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 18273 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2010 13:20:23 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-13.tower-129.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Oct 2010 13:20:23 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91DKdNO005788 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:20:40 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91DKajB005756 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:20:36 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91DKJMx003681 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:20:19 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91DKC1e003428 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:20:12 -0400 Message-Id: <201010011320.o91DKC1e003428@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-69-189.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.69.189](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20101001132011gw100ei17je>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:20:11 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.69.189] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:20:33 -0400 To: bmwg@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [bmwg] Fwd: NomCom 2010-2011: Call for Nominations extended to October 8 X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:19:37 -0000 BMWG,

Please allocate some cycles to this request.

Since our work crosses into many IETF areas, it's
particularly important for us to think about folks
we know and respect who might be willing and able
to serve as ADs.

You can obtain a login/password and view the current
list of nominees, using Tom Walsh's instructions below
(but you must agree to the same confidentiality agreement as
the NomCom members, see RFC 3777, section 5, rule 12, paragraph 3 ).
If you look at the list, it may give you incentive to comment.

And to be completely frank with everyone, I'm not eligible.

thinking caps on,
Al

From: NomCom Chair <nomcom-chair@ietf.org>
To: IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: NomCom 2010-2011: Call for Nominations extended to October 8
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: ietf-announce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <ietf-announce.ietf.org>

Hi Folks,

We have decided to extend the call for nominations for one more week
to allow further consideration by the community if there are sufficient
Willing Nominees, particularly for the Open IESG positions. Nominations
are welcome through October 8 at 1700 Pacific Time.

Please take a moment and review the Open List of Willing Nominees for
each position and determine if you wish to submit any additional names
before we close nominations. In particular, we ask you to review the
IESG nominations where in some cases there are as few as 1 or 2
willing nominees.

Q: Where is the list of open IETF position and job descriptions?

A: The list of IETF open positions is found at
https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/10/

Q: Where is the list of willing nominees?

A: The list of willing nominees for the IETF open positions is
available at https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/10/input/

Q: How do I get a login to see the list of willing nominees?

A: If you need a username/password it is very easy to obtain at
http://tools.ietf.org/

Just select "Get Passwd" from the left margin and it will take
you to the new login page. Your User Name is your email address
and you can request a password at this page
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/newlogin

Q: How do I enter a nomination?

A: There are several ways:

We prefer you enter a nomination by going to the following URL
https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/10/nominate.

Note: Be sure to select the correct position (e.g., APP, SEC, IAB,
etc.) from the pull down menu when you nominate someone.

Or send email to nomcom10@ietf.org giving us the IETF posiiton,
full name and email address of the nominee.

Q: Do we really need more nominations?

Well, that is up to you in the community. Look at the list of
willing Nominees and make your own decision on whether to submit
a nomination.

Even if you think a willing incumbent is doing a very good
job and should be returned, NomCom needs to consider multiple
nominees to be prepared in the event one or more candidates
is unable to serve come next March and to ensure we have
chosen the best candidate.

Q: Is this the last call for nominations?

A: This will be the last and final call for all open positions.
Should NomCom not be able to select a qualified candidate for a
specific open position, a future call for that position only is
always possible.

Thank you,

Thomas Walsh
Chair, Nomcom 2010-2011
nomcom-chair@ietf.org
twalsh@juniper.net

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

From acmorton@att.com Fri Oct 1 07:04:33 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA343A6F18 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:04:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.337 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.459, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sz8U58Q5vr2A for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com (mail121.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF883A6E3E for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:04:31 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1285941919!47154595!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 19227 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2010 14:05:19 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-3.tower-121.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Oct 2010 14:05:19 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91E5ZII001258 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:05:36 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91E5SFT001189 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:05:29 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91E5BCa005949 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:05:11 -0400 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91E57xE005723 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:05:07 -0400 Message-Id: <201010011405.o91E57xE005723@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-69-189.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.69.189](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20101001140506gw100ei181e>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:05:06 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.69.189] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:05:30 -0400 To: bmwg@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [bmwg] WG status X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:04:33 -0000 BMWG, When we parted after our session in July, we had the following action items pending, as captured in the meeting minutes: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/minutes/bmwg.html I've added my view of current status below each item. ACTION Items: ------------------ Start another WGLC on the RESET draft when revised to address the post-submission-deadline discussions on the list and at the meeting. draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-01 2010-07-09 Active Need revised draft. Revised versions of IPsec drafts needed (addressing IESG review). Need revised drafts. Revised versions of IGP-Dataplane drafts needed (addressing IESG review). Need revised drafts. WG comments on key issues (see the detailed minutes). List has been rather quiet. Complete Re-chartering Discussions in the WG. Proposed Charter will be discussed at next IESG Telechat (Oct 7). I've appended the proposed charter text below, Al bmwg chair =========================================================================== From: IESG Secretary To: iesg@ietf.org, iab@iab.org, acmorton@att.com Subject: Internal WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg) A new charter for the Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg) working group in the Operations and Management Area of the IETF is being considered. The draft charter is provided below for your review and comment. Review time is one week. The IETF Secretariat Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg) --------------------------------------------------- Current Status: Active Working Group r3 Last Updated 2010-09-29 Chair: Al Morton Operations and Management Area Directors: Ronald Bonica Dan Romascanu Operations and Management Area Advisor: Ronald Bonica Mailing Lists: Address: bmwg@ietf.org To Subscribe: bmwg-request@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/ Description of Working Group: The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) will continue to produce a series of recommendations concerning the key performance characteristics of internetworking technologies, or benchmarks for network devices, systems, and services. Taking a view of networking divided into planes, the scope of work includes benchmarks for the management, control, and forwarding planes. 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. The set of relevant benchmarks will be developed with input from the community of users (e.g, network operators and testing organizations) and from those affected by the benchmarks when they are published (networking and test equipment manufacturers). When possible, the benchmarks and other terminology will be developed jointly with organizations that are willing to share their expertise. Joint review requirements for a specific work area will be included in the detailed description of the task, as listed below. To better distinguish the BMWG from other measurement initiatives in the IETF, the scope of the BMWG is limited to the characterization of implementations of various internetworking technologies using controlled 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. The BMWG will communicate with the operations community through organizations such as NANOG, RIPE, and APRICOT. In addition to its current work plan, the BMWG is explicitly tasked to develop benchmarks and methodologies for the following technologies: (continuing, but new wording) * BGP Control-plane Convergence Methodology (Terminology is complete): With relevant performance characteristics identified, BMWG will prepare a Benchmarking Methodology Document with review from the Routing Area (e.g., the IDR working group and/or the RTG-DIR). The Benchmarking Methodology will be Last-Called in all the groups that previously provided input, including another round of network operator input during the last call. (continuing) * 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. (new) * Flow Export and Collection: Develop terminology and methods to characterize network devices flow monitoring, export, and collection. The goal is a methodology to assess the maximum IP flow rate that a network device can sustain without losing any IP flow information or compromising the accuracy of information exported on the IP flows, and to asses the forwarding plane performance (if the forwarding function is present) in the presence of Flow Monitoring. (new) * Data Center Bridging Devices: Some key concepts from BMWG's past work are not meaningful when testing switches that implement new IEEE specifications in the area of data center bridging. For example, throughput as defined in RFC 1242 cannot be measured when testing devices that implement three new IEEE specifications: priority-based flow control (802.1Qbb); priority groups (802.1Qaz); and congestion notification (802.1Qau). Since devices that implement these new congestion-management specifications should never drop frames, and since the metric of throughput distinguishes between non-zero and zero drop rates, no throughput measurement is possible using the existing methodology. This work will update RFC 2455 and exchange periodic Liaisons with IEEE 802.1 DCB Task Group, especially at WG Last Call. (new) * Content Aware Devices: New classes of network devices that operate above the IP layer of the network stack require a new methodology to perform adequate benchmarking. Existing BMWG RFCs (RFC2647 and RFC3511) provides useful measurement and performance statistics, though they may not reflect the actual performance of the device when deployed in production networks. Operating within the limitations of the charter, namely blackbox characterization in laboratory environments, the BMWG will develop a methodology that more closely relates the performance of these devices to performance in an operational setting. In order to confirm or identify key performance characteristics, BMWG will solicit input from operations groups such as NANOG, RIP and APRICOT. (new) * LDP Dataplane Convergence: In order to identify key LDP convergence performance characteristics, BMWG will solicit input from operations groups such as NANOG, RIP and APRICOT. When relevant performance characteristics have been identified, BMWG will jointly prepare a Benchmarking Terminology Document with the Routing Area (e.g., the MPLS working group and or the RTG-DIR), which would define metrics relevant to LDP convergence. The Benchmark definition document would be Last-Called in all the working groups that produced it, and solicit operator input during the last call. The work will then continue in BMWG to define the test methodology, with input and review from the aforementioned parties. Goals and Milestones: Updated Milestones Done Terminology For Protection Benchmarking to AD Review Sep 2010 Networking Device Reset Benchmark (Updates RFC 2544) to IESG Review Dec 2010 Methodology For Protection Benchmarking to IESG Review Jun 2011 Terminology for SIP Device Benchmarking to IESG Review Jun 2011 Methodology for SIP Device Benchmarking to IESG Review Jul 2010 Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology to IESG Review. New Milestones Feb 2011 Methodology for Flow Export and Collection Benchmarking to IESG Review Jun 2011 Methodology for Data Center Bridging Benchmarking to IESG Review Dec 2011 Terminology for Content Aware Device Benchmarking to IESG Review Dec 2011 Methodology for Content Aware Device Benchmarking to IESG Review Dec 2011 Terminology for LDP Convergence Benchmarking to IESG Review Dec 2011 Methodology for LDP Convergence Benchmarking to IESG Review REMOVED Milestones Dec 2008 Net Traffic Control Benchmarking Methodology to AD Review. Dec 2008 Router Accelerated Test Terminology to IESG Review Dec 2008 Router Accelerated Test Methodology to IESG Review From acmorton@att.com Fri Oct 1 07:41:23 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6C73A6CEC for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:41:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.366 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.430, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vx-Y25U4Ul1X for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com (mail146.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0D23A6C63 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:41:21 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1285944128!20214405!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 27976 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2010 14:42:09 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-8.tower-146.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Oct 2010 14:42:09 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91EfYZf021948 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:41:34 -0400 Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91EfUp3021892 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:41:31 -0400 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91Eg4JS010151 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:42:04 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o91Eg1rh009989 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:42:01 -0500 Message-Id: <201010011442.o91Eg1rh009989@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-69-189.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.69.189](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20101001144200gw100ei185e>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:42:00 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.69.189] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:42:24 -0400 To: "bmwg@ietf.org" From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [bmwg] BMWG Agenda Requests for IETF-79 in Beijing X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:41:23 -0000 BMWG, WG chairs have been asked to begin working their agendas well in advance of the upcoming meeting, so... Assuming no remote presentations again, I ask that folks consider their WG drafts + proposed work on the charter, and make agenda requests (with supporting info, as always) to me ASAP. regards, Al bmwg chair From kdubray@juniper.net Fri Oct 1 07:58:54 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B63D3A6DE9 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:58:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_RMML_Stock10=0.13, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zE7QQhUl3nBh for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A0D3A6EDF for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTKX3W2xRk9KAXWiPCOUspdY2kKp/OvTa@postini.com; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 07:59:41 PDT Received: from [127.0.0.1] (172.28.36.189) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.254.0; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:58:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4CA5F716.8010307@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:58:30 -0400 From: Kevin Dubray User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Al Morton References: <201010011405.o91E57xE005723@alpd052.aldc.att.com> In-Reply-To: <201010011405.o91E57xE005723@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "bmwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bmwg] WG status X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:58:54 -0000 Al, I like the re-tooled charter. It preserves the historical intent of developing "universal measuring tapes" for internetworking devices while providing specific clarity regarding areas of responsibility as well collaboration with other teams/communities. Perhaps, a minor area to discuss is: "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." I think it might be beneficial to a) reconcile the above to the comment in the minutes regarding technology vs technology implementations, and b) augment the notion of "operations" with capabilities. Many operators are interested in describing an area of "assured behavior in a nominal environment"; many those operator's engineering teams are looking for describing how implementations provide maximal benefit in some particular dimension or set of dimensions while assessing [future?] behavior when capability is exceeded. The notion is that there is benefit in addition to "real-life" testing that is well suited to the clinical evaluation in which the BMWG operates. If you buy-in to the above, a slightly modified wording might take on the appearance of: "An ongoing task is to provide a forum for discussion regarding the advancement of measurements designed to provide insight on the capability and operations of inter-networking technology implementations." Not too painful. :-) -Kevin On 10/1/2010 10:05 AM, Al Morton wrote: > BMWG, > > When we parted after our session in July, we had the > following action items pending, as captured in the meeting > minutes: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/minutes/bmwg.html > > I've added my view of current status below each item. > > ACTION Items: > ------------------ > > > I've appended the proposed charter text below, From acmorton@att.com Wed Oct 6 13:52:51 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0EA13A7266 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:52:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4DBN5a6pSzvN for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:52:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail129.messagelabs.com (mail129.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791B83A725B for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:52:46 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1286398082!35782672!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 27694 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2010 20:48:03 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-5.tower-129.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Oct 2010 20:48:03 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o96KlRT0019099 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:47:27 -0400 Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o96KlKCt018961 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:47:21 -0400 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o96KltBU011347 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 15:47:55 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o96KlrQa011308 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 15:47:53 -0500 Message-Id: <201010062047.o96KlrQa011308@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (ds135-16-251-236.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.16.251.236](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20101006204752gw100ei1lbe>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 20:47:52 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.236] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:48:16 -0400 To: "bmwg@ietf.org" From: Al Morton In-Reply-To: <201010011442.o91Eg1rh009989@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> References: <201010011442.o91Eg1rh009989@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [bmwg] BMWG Agenda Requests for IETF-79 in Beijing X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 20:52:51 -0000 Reminder: I haven't received any agenda requests yet. In case I'm sitting in the room by myself in Beijing, at least I'll have a draft to present: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-morton-bmwg-imix-genome-00.txt Comments on this are very welcome, and probably don't need much encouragement since this has been and will likely continue to be a controversial topic here in old bmwg (please change subject line). It is not my intent to slight anyone's test box, and I'll be happy to add Informative References to anyone's white paper or application note describing their favorite IMIX(s). Re-charter update: Our wagon was hit by a few arrows, but we're still on the path. IESG discussion tomorrow. Al bmwg chair At 10:42 AM 10/1/2010, Al Morton wrote: >BMWG, > >WG chairs have been asked to begin working their agendas >well in advance of the upcoming meeting, so... > >Assuming no remote presentations again, I ask that folks consider >their WG drafts + proposed work on the charter, and make agenda requests >(with supporting info, as always) to me ASAP. > >regards, >Al >bmwg chair > >_______________________________________________ >bmwg mailing list >bmwg@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg From ilya@nobulus.com Thu Oct 7 07:16:25 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFC83A705C for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:16:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.207 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.391, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pzSM-kpugRaj for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobulus.com (nobulus.com [IPv6:2001:6f8:892:6ff::11:152]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9423A7116 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobulus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nobulus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB23F1748A for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:17:14 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nobulus.com Received: from nobulus.com ([127.0.0.1]) by nobulus.com (nobulus.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id hsJiYvnby9H1 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:17:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hnivarlas1 (unknown [IPv6:2001:6f8:892:6f8:84f2:ad7a:d78c:4936]) by nobulus.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C24511748E for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:17:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <6B2E5A60D8034E2EBDA3674F1424ADCF@hnivarlas1> From: "iLya" To: Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:17:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="koi8-r"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 Subject: [bmwg] comment on draft-morton-bmwg-imix-genome-00.txt X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:16:25 -0000 Hi Al, a comment to Section 3 of your draft draft-morton-bmwg-imix-genome-00.txt: MTU-sized packet is definetely useful/desirable because it allows to perform practically-useful test on e.g. PPPoE lines where 1518Byte packets won't fit. Kind regards, iLya From root@core3.amsl.com Sun Oct 10 18:45:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@ietf.org Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 144963A68A4; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:45:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20101011014502.144963A68A4@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 18:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: bmwg@ietf.org Subject: [bmwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-02.txt X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:45:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group of the IETF. Title : Device Reset Characterization Author(s) : R. Asati, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-02.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2010-10-10 An operational forwarding device may need to be re-started (automatically or manually) for a variety of reasons, an event that we call a "reset" in this document. Since there may be an interruption in the forwarding operation during a reset, it is useful to know how long a device takes to resume the forwarding operation. This document specifies a methodology for characterizing reset (and recovery time) during benchmarking of forwarding devices, and provides clarity and consistency in reset test procedures beyond what's specified in RFC2544. It therefore updates RFC2544. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-10-10183516.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From acmorton@att.com Mon Oct 11 05:27:05 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E178A3A69EA; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:27:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.414 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.382, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WJHGq0fCeNte; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail167.messagelabs.com (mail167.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C3D3A69B6; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:27:04 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1286800095!16756688!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 28712 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2010 12:28:15 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-2.tower-167.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 11 Oct 2010 12:28:15 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9BCSVNx002589; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:28:32 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9BCST4P002582; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:28:29 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9BCSCHc016800; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:28:12 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9BCS55n016546; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:28:05 -0400 Message-Id: <201010111228.o9BCS55n016546@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-228-37.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.228.37](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20101011122804gw100ei1sle>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:28:05 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.228.37] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:28:28 -0400 To: pmol@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: bmwg@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org Subject: [bmwg] Repeated WGLC on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-05 X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:27:06 -0000 PMOL WG, cc IPPM and BMWG WGs, This message begins a PMOL WG Last Call on the following draft: Title: Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development Author(s) : A. Clark, B. Claise Filename : draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-05.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2010-10-10 This memo describes a framework and guidelines for the development of performance metrics that are beyond the scope of existing working group charters in the IETF. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-05.txt There has been discussion of this draft for over 3 years on the PMOL list and at meetings, both formal and informal. The previous WGLC closed on January 2, 2009. The Authors believe all comments to date have been addressed. Please weigh-in on whether or not this Draft should be forwarded to the Area Directors for publication as a Standards Track RFC. Send your comments to the PMOL list or the co-chairs. The Last Call will be open till November 8, 2010. thanks for your review and comments, Al Morton co-chair, PMOL WG From acmorton@att.com Mon Oct 11 05:38:29 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C5E3A6A1A for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:38:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.434 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RkSRMr74abwD for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA673A69F4 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:38:27 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1286800777!28653142!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 9703 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2010 12:39:38 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-13.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 11 Oct 2010 12:39:38 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9BCdp1F014549 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:39:52 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9BCdmjr014514 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:39:49 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9BCdVi3006599 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:39:31 -0400 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9BCdQX8006473 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:39:27 -0400 Message-Id: <201010111239.o9BCdQX8006473@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-228-37.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.228.37](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20101011123926gw100ei1sne>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:39:26 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.228.37] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:39:49 -0400 To: bmwg@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-02 X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:38:29 -0000 BMWG, This message begins the Second WG Last call on the draft: Title : Device Reset Characterization Author(s) : R. Asati, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-02.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2010-10-10 A URL for this draft is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-02 The Last Call will end on November 8, 2010. Since this is the second WGLC (1st closed July 21, 2010), I ask folks to consider items where they commented earlier, and make sure that the resolutions are satisfactory. And it's not too late to read the draft for the first time. Almost everyone of us has conducted this sort of testing and should have an opinion on the methods. Please weigh-in on whether or not this Internet-Draft should be given to the Area Directors and IESG for consideration and publication as an Informational RFC. Send your comments to this list and/or acmorton@att.com. Al bmwg chair From janovak@cisco.com Tue Oct 12 01:42:50 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38ECD3A68EA; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:42:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3-u-K-29Te-E; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1CC3A67DB; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-3.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAHK8s0yrRN+J/2dsb2JhbAChUnGgXZxwhUgEjUo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,319,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="242251095" Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2010 08:44:03 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9C8hemm005365; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:44:03 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:43:59 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:43:57 +0200 Message-ID: <6674CF9A9F682245A590204F819F78AD02ED90BE@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [bmwg] Repeated WGLC on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-05 Thread-Index: Actp6Zvb+Q+oGNK9To+jO3jnkeFlYg== From: "Jan Novak (janovak)" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2010 08:43:59.0153 (UTC) FILETIME=[9CF10A10:01CB69E9] Cc: Al Morton Subject: [bmwg] Repeated WGLC on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-05 X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:42:50 -0000 Hi, A bit late but just few comments on the draft: Just a numpty in the text: The key areas of variation between different metric users include: o Suitability of passive measurements of live traffic, or active measurements using dedicated traffic o Measurement in laboratory environment, or on a network of deployed devices o Suitability of passive measurements of live traffic, or active measurements using dedicated traffic o Measurement in laboratory environment, or on a network of deployed devices In the context of this draft - section 5.1 and 5.4.2 most of the terms=20 used are self explanative, but wouldn't be so sure about the meaning of "Measurement Point" and "the measurement domain" - sounds familiar from IPFIX but not here ... Section 5.4.4 - doesn't the template miss the normative point (v) Measurement Point(s) from 5.4.2 ?? Jan The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young ....=20 and the strong envy them. Dr. Johnson And yet the place establishes an interest in people's hearts; go where they will, they find no city of the same distinction; go where they will, they take a pride in their old home. RLS From acmorton@att.com Tue Oct 12 06:06:07 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9773A693A for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:06:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.298, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g3+ac8IcWQtU for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C499F3A67AE for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:06:06 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1286888839!55181929!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 27743 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2010 13:07:20 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-4.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Oct 2010 13:07:20 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9CD6hj0025594 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:06:43 -0400 Received: from klpd017.kcdc.att.com (klpd017.kcdc.att.com [135.188.40.86]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9CD6bVw025519 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:06:37 -0400 Received: from kcdc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9CD7CFc029953 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:07:12 -0500 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by klpd017.kcdc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9CD77eV029870 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:07:07 -0500 Message-Id: <201010121307.o9CD77eV029870@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (ds135-16-251-236.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.16.251.236](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20101012130706gw100ei10je>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:07:06 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.236] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:07:30 -0400 To: bmwg@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [bmwg] Fwd: reminder: I-D cutoff dates for IETF-79 X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:06:08 -0000 FYI - >From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" >To: , >Subject: reminder: I-D cutoff dates for IETF-79 > >Just a reminder that the cutoff date for -00 drafts is this Monday, >October 18, at 24:00 UTC. The date for drafts with higher version >numbers is the following Monday, October 25, also at 24:00 UTC. Yes, >IETF 79 is fast approaching! > >Dan From janovak@cisco.com Wed Oct 13 08:34:06 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58DF93A6B62 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:34:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r4uktsP6CzEi for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC783A696F for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-3.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArQFAEZutUyrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACTWI12caAznG2FSASNSg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,326,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="242443766" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Oct 2010 15:35:22 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9DFZ1Mu022989; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:35:21 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:35:00 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:34:59 +0200 Message-ID: <6674CF9A9F682245A590204F819F78AD02ED987B@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-02 Thread-Index: Actq7DHU1WbQhIBlS5CHCagTybMLRA== From: "Jan Novak (janovak)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Oct 2010 15:35:00.0886 (UTC) FILETIME=[32E49B60:01CB6AEC] Cc: Al Morton Subject: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-02 X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:34:06 -0000 Hi, I have gone through the new version and all the comments were applied quite satisfactorily .. Tx, Jan BMWG, This message begins the Second WG Last call on the draft: Title : Device Reset Characterization Author(s) : R. Asati, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-02.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2010-10-10 A URL for this draft is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-reset-02 The Last Call will end on November 8, 2010. Since this is the second WGLC (1st closed July 21, 2010), I ask folks to consider items where they commented earlier, and make sure that the resolutions are satisfactory. And it's not too late to read the draft for the first time. Almost everyone of us has conducted this sort of testing and should have an opinion on the methods. Please weigh-in on whether or not this Internet-Draft should be given to the Area Directors and IESG for consideration and publication as an Informational RFC. Send your comments to this list and/or acmorton at att.com. Al bmwg chair The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young ....=20 and the strong envy them. Dr. Johnson From wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Thu Oct 21 14:05:38 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@ietf.org Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 532A33A68A0; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:05:38 -0700 (PDT) From: IESG Secretary To: IETF Announcement list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20101021210538.532A33A68A0@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Cc: acmorton@att.com, bmwg@ietf.org Subject: [bmwg] WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg) X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:05:38 -0000 A modified charter has been submitted for the Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg) working group in the Operations and Management Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by Thursday, October 28, 2010. Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg) --------------------------------------------------- Current Status: Active Working Group r4 Last Updated 2010-10-20 Chair: Al Morton Operations and Management Area Directors: Ronald Bonica Dan Romascanu Operations and Management Area Advisor: Ronald Bonica Mailing Lists: Address: bmwg@ietf.org To Subscribe: bmwg-request@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/ Description of Working Group: The Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) will continue to produce a series of recommendations concerning the key performance characteristics of internetworking technologies, or benchmarks for network devices, systems, and services. Taking a view of networking divided into planes, the scope of work includes benchmarks for the management, control, and forwarding planes. 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. The set of relevant benchmarks will be developed with input from the community of users (e.g, network operators and testing organizations) and from those affected by the benchmarks when they are published (networking and test equipment manufacturers). When possible, the benchmarks and other terminology will be developed jointly with organizations that are willing to share their expertise. Joint review requirements for a specific work area will be included in the detailed description of the task, as listed below. To better distinguish the BMWG from other measurement initiatives in the IETF, the scope of the BMWG is limited to the characterization of implementations of various internetworking technologies using controlled 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 capabilities and operation of inter-networking technology implementations. The BMWG will communicate with the operations community through organizations such as NANOG, RIPE, and APRICOT. In addition to its current work plan, the BMWG is explicitly tasked to develop benchmarks and methodologies for the following technologies: * BGP Control-plane Convergence Methodology (Terminology is complete): With relevant performance characteristics identified, BMWG will prepare a Benchmarking Methodology Document with review from the Routing Area (e.g., the IDR working group and/or the RTG-DIR). The Benchmarking Methodology will be Last-Called in all the groups that previously provided input, including another round of network operator input during the last call. * 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. * Flow Export and Collection: Develop terminology and methods to characterize network devices flow monitoring, export, and collection. The goal is a methodology to assess the maximum IP flow rate that a network device can sustain without losing any IP flow information or compromising the accuracy of information exported on the IP flows, and to asses the forwarding plane performance (if the forwarding function is present) in the presence of Flow Monitoring. * Data Center Bridging Devices: Some key concepts from BMWG's past work are not meaningful when testing switches that implement new IEEE specifications in the area of data center bridging. For example, throughput as defined in RFC 1242 cannot be measured when testing devices that implement three new IEEE specifications: priority-based flow control (802.1Qbb); priority groups (802.1Qaz); and congestion notification (802.1Qau). Since devices that implement these new congestion-management specifications should never drop frames, and since the metric of throughput distinguishes between non-zero and zero drop rates, no throughput measurement is possible using the existing methodology. The current emphasis is on the Priority Flow Control aspects of Data Center Bridging, and the work will include an investigation into whether TRILL RBridges require any specific treatment in the methodology. This work will update RFC 2455 and exchange periodic Liaisons with IEEE 802.1 DCB Task Group, especially at WG Last Call. * Content Aware Devices: New classes of network devices that operate above the IP layer of the network stack require a new methodology to perform adequate benchmarking. Existing BMWG RFCs (RFC2647 and RFC3511) provides useful measurement and performance statistics, though they may not reflect the actual performance of the device when deployed in production networks. Operating within the limitations of the charter, namely blackbox characterization in laboratory environments, the BMWG will develop a methodology that more closely relates the performance of these devices to performance in an operational setting. In order to confirm or identify key performance characteristics, BMWG will solicit input from operations groups such as NANOG, RIP and APRICOT. * LDP Dataplane Convergence: In order to identify key LDP convergence performance characteristics, BMWG will solicit input from operations groups such as NANOG, RIP and APRICOT. When relevant performance characteristics have been identified, BMWG will jointly prepare a Benchmarking Terminology Document with the Routing Area (e.g., the MPLS working group and or the RTG-DIR), which would define metrics relevant to LDP convergence. The Benchmark definition document would be Last-Called in all the working groups that produced it, and solicit operator input during the last call. The work will then continue in BMWG to define the test methodology, with input and review from the aforementioned parties. Goals and Milestones Done Expand the current Ethernet switch benchmarking methodology draft to define the metrics and methodologies particular to the general class of connectionless, LAN switches. Done Edit the LAN switch draft to reflect the input from BMWG. Issue a new version of document for comment. If appropriate, ascertain consensus on whether to recommend the draft for consideration as an RFC. Done Take controversial components of multicast draft to mailing list for discussion. Incorporate changes to draft and reissue appropriately. Done Submit workplan for initiating work on Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices. Done Submit workplan for continuing work on the Terminology for Cell/Call Benchmarking draft. Done Submit initial draft of Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switches. Done Submit Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking draft for AD Review. Done Submit Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Performance for AD review Done Progress ATM benchmarking terminology draft to AD review. Done Submit Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices draft for AD review. Done Submit first draft of Firewall Benchmarking Methodology. Done First Draft of Terminology for FIB related Router Performance Benchmarking. Done First Draft of Router Benchmarking Framework Done Progress Frame Relay benchmarking terminology draft to AD review. Done Methodology for ATM Benchmarking for AD review. Done Terminology for ATM ABR Benchmarking for AD review. Done Terminology for FIB related Router Performance Benchmarking to AD review. Done Firewall Benchmarking Methodology to AD Review Done First Draft of Methodology for FIB related Router Performance Benchmarking. Done First draft Net Traffic Control Benchmarking Methodology. Done Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking to AD Review. Done Resource Reservation Benchmarking Terminology to AD Review Done First I-D on IPsec Device Benchmarking Terminology Done EGP Convergence Benchmarking Terminology to AD Review Done Resource Reservation Benchmarking Methodology to AD Review Done Net Traffic Control Benchmarking Terminology to AD Review Done IGP/Data-Plane Terminology I-D to AD Review Done IGP/Data-Plane Methodology and Considerations I-Ds to AD Review Done Hash and Stuffing I-D to AD Review Done IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology to AD Review Done IPsec Device Benchmarking Terminology to IESG Review Done IPsec Device Benchmarking Methodology to IESG Review Updated Milestones Done Terminology For Protection Benchmarking to AD Review Sep 2010 Networking Device Reset Benchmark (Updates RFC 2544) to IESG Review Dec 2010 Methodology For Protection Benchmarking to IESG Review Jun 2011 Terminology for SIP Device Benchmarking to IESG Review Jun 2011 Methodology for SIP Device Benchmarking to IESG Review Jul 2010 Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology to IESG Review. Feb 2011 Methodology for Flow Export and Collection Benchmarking to IESG Review Jun 2011 Methodology for Data Center Bridging Benchmarking to IESG Review Dec 2011 Terminology for Content Aware Device Benchmarking to IESG Review Dec 2011 Methodology for Content Aware Device Benchmarking to IESG Review Dec 2011 Terminology for LDP Convergence Benchmarking to IESG Review Dec 2011 Methodology for LDP Convergence Benchmarking to IESG Review From paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Thu Oct 21 14:23:22 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 429D73A6848; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:23:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.403 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.643, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4MCVhx9JMtpq; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6843A6845; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.158] (sn87.proper.com [75.101.18.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9LLOrHT061519 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:24:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20101021210538.532A33A68A0@core3.amsl.com> References: <20101021210538.532A33A68A0@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:24:52 -0700 To: iesg@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: acmorton@att.com, bmwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bmwg] WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg) X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:23:22 -0000 At 2:05 PM -0700 10/21/10, IESG Secretary wrote: >A modified charter has been submitted for the Benchmarking Methodology >(bmwg) working group in the Operations and Management Area of the IETF. >The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified charter is >provided below for informational purposes only. Please send your comments >to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by Thursday, October 28, 2010. >. . . >Done IPsec Device Benchmarking Terminology to IESG Review >Done IPsec Device Benchmarking Methodology to IESG Review I think "to IESG review" is not really the goal here; the goal is to get them to become RFCs. According to the Datatracker ( and ), the last recorded action on them was taken about a year ago. None of the IESG DISCUSS issues seem to have been resolved, and the drafts just died. Wearing my IPsecME co-chair hat, I would like to see action on these these two documents be part of the new charter. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium From rbonica@juniper.net Thu Oct 21 18:21:17 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962C03A6832; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:21:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZNM6MnBlag3m; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAC83A6359; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTMDnZLSZDsZdSO4bTvHHVne0yyD2kttI@postini.com; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:22:53 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:20:05 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:20:04 -0400 From: Ronald Bonica To: Paul Hoffman , "iesg@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:20:03 -0400 Thread-Topic: WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg) Thread-Index: ActxZmu5Cx+HWZV4SSCG/xl8+1lsBwAIJdOg Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B02137FE43@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: <20101021210538.532A33A68A0@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "acmorton@att.com" , "bmwg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bmwg] WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg) X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:21:17 -0000 Paul, WG charters typically talk about sending drafts to the IESG. Beyond that, t= hey can't make a commitment because the IESG's behavior is beyond their con= trol. That said, I will ping the author about this draft. I have not done so in t= he past because she has had health issues. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Paul Hoffman > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:25 PM > To: iesg@ietf.org > Cc: acmorton@att.com; bmwg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology (bmwg) >=20 > At 2:05 PM -0700 10/21/10, IESG Secretary wrote: > >A modified charter has been submitted for the Benchmarking Methodology > >(bmwg) working group in the Operations and Management Area of the > IETF. > >The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified charter > is > >provided below for informational purposes only. Please send your > comments > >to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by Thursday, October 28, > 2010. > >. . . > >Done IPsec Device Benchmarking Terminology to IESG Review > >Done IPsec Device Benchmarking Methodology to IESG Review >=20 > I think "to IESG review" is not really the goal here; the goal is to > get them to become RFCs. >=20 > According to the Datatracker ( ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth/> and ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term/>), the last recorded action on them was taken > about a year ago. None of the IESG DISCUSS issues seem to have been > resolved, and the drafts just died. Wearing my IPsecME co-chair hat, I > would like to see action on these these two documents be part of the > new charter. >=20 > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium From janovak@cisco.com Fri Oct 22 07:11:34 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0727A28C0FE for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:11:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YRNCqcK1f-N8 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8107F28C104 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:11:27 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar8FAEM5wUyrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACTcI1ycaQfnBSFSgSNVw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,223,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="205034572" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Oct 2010 14:13:04 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9MECjnf025982 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:13:04 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-107.cisco.com ([144.254.74.82]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:12:59 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:12:58 +0200 Message-ID: <6674CF9A9F682245A590204F819F78AD02FFF7A4@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [bmwg] comment on draft-morton-bmwg-imix-genome-00.txt Thread-Index: Actx8zqXE6iKBBfwQNS95r+C5ax3NA== From: "Jan Novak (janovak)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2010 14:12:59.0279 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B1AB9F0:01CB71F3] Subject: [bmwg] comment on draft-morton-bmwg-imix-genome-00.txt X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:11:34 -0000 Hi, I would agree that tests at MTU packet size are always quite useful, the text could may be contain some note re fragmentation - the tester should know/check if anything is happening there. Otherwise I personally would vote for one particular "quantum" of IMIX traffic to have same header parameters (SA?DA mainly that is) to simulate=20 one conversation and change it after the whole sequence or if too difficult to implement just increment the parameters as needed while keeping the packet sizes ratios (does this and open issue 2 need to be specified at all though ??). jan =20 The climate of Edinburgh is such that the weak succumb young ....=20 and the strong envy them. Dr. Johnson From acmorton@att.com Wed Oct 27 06:00:47 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: bmwg@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C753A69E2 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:00:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.529 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vvo2F6JD8eOr for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:00:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail167.messagelabs.com (mail167.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA7F3A694A for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:00:43 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1288184551!22947507!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 11481 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2010 13:02:31 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-7.tower-167.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Oct 2010 13:02:31 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9RD2moO021503 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:02:48 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9RD2k4V021488 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:02:46 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9RD2SpJ002510 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:02:28 -0400 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o9RD2NEx002348 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:02:24 -0400 Message-Id: <201010271302.o9RD2NEx002348@alpd052.aldc.att.com> Received: from acmt.att.com (ds135-16-251-236.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.16.251.236](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20101027130223gw100ei1ebe>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:02:23 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.236] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:02:49 -0400 To: bmwg@ietf.org From: Al Morton Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: [bmwg] Draft BMWG Agenda Posted for IETF-79 X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:00:47 -0000 BMWG, The draft agenda is posted: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/agenda/bmwg.txt There will be a short status on several WG drafts that do not have presentations proposed, then we'll get to the full presentations and discussion. Re-chartering is proceeding, but not yet finalized. Please let me know if I've missed any agenda requests, Al bmwg chair