MORTON, ALFRED C (AL | 23 Sep 14:55 2014

first WGLC on draft-ietf-bmwg-traffic

BMWG (and AQM):

A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on
Traffic Management Benchmarking:

will be open from 23 September 2014 through October 21 2014.

These drafts are beginning the BMWG Last Call Process. See

which says:
The primary change is a requirement that approximately four WG members
complete a review template for the draft (or set of drafts),
upon entry to the Last Call Process. The WG reviewers should be
outside the body of active contributors (editors + authors).
The goal is to produce a quality review with valuable feedback
on the draft(s), and not to set a minimum number of people willing
to complete the review template. Directed feedback,
regardless of quantity, is a better condition by which BMWG can
more clearly assess a draft's readiness to advance.
(the template is appended to the archived message)

Please read and express your opinion on whether or not these
Internet-Drafts should be forwarded to the Area Directors for
publication as Informational RFCs.  Send your comments
to this list or acmorton <at> and sbanks <at>

(Continue reading)

Sarah Banks | 4 Sep 23:56 2014

WGLC on draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-02

Hello BMWG,
	A Working Group Last Call (WGLC) period for the Internet-Draft describing BGP Basic convergence:

will be open for 4 weeks from today (September 4 2014).

	This is the second, and hopefully last, WGLC on this draft. 

	Please weigh in on whether or not you feel that this Internet-Draft should be given to the Area Directors
for consideration to progressing as an Informational RFC. Send your comments to this list.

Kind regards,
BMWG co-chairs
MORTON, ALFRED C (AL | 4 Sep 22:29 2014

My e-mail was down for a day

If you sent me anything privately, please re-send on
Friday (giving the system a chance to catch-up).

Sarah Banks | 27 Aug 21:06 2014

Change in email address

Hello BMWG,
	I've almost completed the process of migrating my ietf email addresses from a work address, to a personal
email address. I apologize for the inconvenience; I see some of you still sending to an old company
address, and a few of you trying to send to my current company email address (and the spelling is wrong. I
understand. Employees here often can't spell it correctly :)).

	To make things easier, would you mind taking note of this email address? This should be the last change in
addresses, and hopefully things will be easier on your address books :)

Kind regards,
Banks, Sarah | 27 Aug 19:27 2014

Please ignore

shiyang | 12 Aug 05:15 2014

question on data center benchmarking draft

Hi Lucien,

When reading your draft about the methodology of the data center benchmarking( draft-bmwg-dcbench-methodology-02), we found it an very interesting and useful document, and we are trying to apply it into our experiments with DC switches.

However, there are some questions:

(1) what does PORT CAPACITY mean in section 2.2

(2) why latency and jitter are not considered if the traffic generator can not be connected to all ports on the DUT in section 2.2? 

     In our case, we'd like to test the relationship between the frame latency and the switch while we only have a generator with not so many ports.

(3) In Section 3.2, Measure maximum DUT buffer size with many to one ports, what does the equation ((N-1)/port capacity * 99.98)% in the iteration mean? What do you expect from the setting?

(4) In section 6, what is the definition of stateful and stateless flow from the generator side of view? There are only unofficial descriptions like “large and small flows” in the text, but in practice, like how can we use in testing setup to produce  the large and small flow?

(5) There is no clear definition for “flow latency”. Is it the same as the frame latency definition defined in the metric draft (draft-dcbench-def-01)?

Thank you very much!


Yang Shi

bmwg mailing list
bmwg <at>
MORTON, ALFRED C (AL | 19 Jul 15:54 2014

FW: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term

Joel and BMWG,

> The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term has been changed to
> "Submitted to IESG for Publication" from "WG Consensus: Waiting for
> Write-Up" by Al Morton:

The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth has been changed to
"Submitted to IESG for Publication" from "WG Consensus: Waiting for
Write-Up" by Al Morton:

After a quiet WGLC closing on the 14th, we are declaring WG Consensus
and submitting the SIP benchmarking terms and methodology drafts 
for publication.

The combined shepherding forms have been entered in the datatracker 
for each draft, and appended below.

Congratulations to the co-authors, and please stay vigilant as the
drafts proceed through AD-review, IETF Last Call, and IESG review.

see you at IETF-90,
doc shepherd and co-chair


This is a publication request for:
 draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth -11 2014-07-02   	Active
 draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term -11 2014-07-02   	Active

Al Morton is the Document Shepherd, and prepared this form.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
page header?

Informational, as indicated on the title page.
All BMWG RFCs are traditionally Informational,
in part because they do not define protocols and
the traditional conditions for Stds track advancement
did not apply.  However, they are specifications and
the RFC 2119 terms are applicable to identify the
level of requirements.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a
Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for
approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

All networking devices have a limited capacity to serve their
purpose. In some cases these limits can be ascertained by counting
physical features (e.g., interface card slots), but in other cases
standardized tests are required to be sure that all vendors count
their protocol-handling capacity in the same way, to avoid specmanship.
This draft addresses one such case, where the SIP session-serving 
capacity of a device can only be discovered and rigorously compared
with other devices through isolated laboratory testing.

This document describes the methodology for benchmarking Session
This document describes the terminology for benchmarking Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) performance as described in SIP
benchmarking terminology document.  The methodology and terminology
are to be used for benchmarking signaling plane performance with
varying signaling and media load.  Both scale and establishment rate
are measured by signaling plane performance.  The SIP Devices to be
benchmarked may be a single device under test or a system under
test.  Benchmarks can be obtained and compared for different
types of devices such as SIP Proxy Server, Session Border Controller,
and server paired with a media relay or Firewall/NAT device.

Working Group Summary:

There were periods of intense and constructive feedback on this draft,
but also several pauses in progress during development. The most lively
discussions were prompted by presentation of actual test results using
the draft methods, which require significant time investment but are well-
worth the result. These drafts serve a useful purpose for the industry.

Document Quality:

There are existing implementations of the method, as noted above.

Dale Worley conducted an early review, following BMWG's request
of the RAI area.  Dales's comments were addressed in version 05.
Henning Schulzrinne commented on the original work proposal.


Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Al Morton is Shepherd, Joel Jaeggli is Responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this
version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded
to the IESG.

The shepherd has reviewed the drafts many times, and his comments are
in the BMWG archive. 

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security,
operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No. Cross-area review has been obtained, however it impossible to get
the attention of everyone who considers themselves a SIP expert.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the
Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In
any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the
document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns, this is still a valuable memo, as mentioned above.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance
with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

There are not outstanding IPR disclosures, according to the authors.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and
conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Although the comments and review intensity was highly variable,
it now appears that the WG is satisfied.  
The first WGLC was completed on 5 April 2010 with comments.
The second WGLC was completed on 18 May 2012 with comments.
The third WGLC was completed on 10 Dec 2012 with comments, and the 1st Pub Request.
A IETF Last Call followed, and completed on 30 Jan 2013 with comments.
A fourth WGLC was completed 11 June 2014 with comments from expert review.
The current versions (11) address Dale Worley's RAI area early review
and Robert Spark's reviews.
The fifth WGLC completed quietly on July 14th, 2014.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise
the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not
enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Nits are warnings requiring no action for these drafts.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media
type, and URI type reviews.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an
unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

The -term and -meth drafts are proceeding toward publication as a pair.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward
references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the
title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship
of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the
WG considers it unnecessary.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard
to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document
makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced
IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for
future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

No requests of IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public
guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the
document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

ramki Krishnan | 16 Jul 07:59 2014

Proposed IRTF Network Functions Virtualization Research Group (NFVRG) - first face-to-face meeting at Toronto

Please find more information on NFVRG including charter at -


Please find meeting location and agenda at -



Ramki on behalf of the co-chairs

bmwg mailing list
bmwg <at>
Lucien Avramov (lavramov | 16 Jul 07:38 2014

data center benchmarking - request for further feedback on drafts


We have been talking about the Data Center benchmarking draft for 
sometime. As authors, we would like to solicit more feedback. To date 
the main conversations we had were around jitter and definition on the 
first draft.

The first is draft on definition is at the following URL:

Regarding the first draft where we received the most comments so far, we 
would like to hear from you regarding section 4,5,6 and 7. As we have 
build these while talking to customers, switch vendors and traffic 
generator folks, we want to see if there are any other comments around it:

  4 Physical Layer Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
  5 Line rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
  6  Buffering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
  7 Application Throughput: Data Center Goodput. . . . . . . . . . . 13

The second draft is on methodology and can be found here:

We would like to see more feedback especially on the second draft 
section 3,4,5 and 6:
    3. Buffering Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
    4  Microburst Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 10
    5. Head of Line Blocking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
    6. Incast Stateful and Stateless Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

We introduce a new method to measure buffering capability of a DUT. Our 
goal with this method is to not have the end user to care about the type 
of DUT he has [cut-through / store-forward] and the test will actually 
detect and measure the DUT buffering. We then use this type of 
methodology for microburst.

Then we would like to know what you think about the head of line 
blocking evaluation. This is very important while designing data center 
networks, in order to make the proper design and deployment decisions 
based on the DUT performance. We use a generic methodology here as well 
bringing the capability to understand the impact of head of line 
blocking in a more precise way than the usual current tests which 
involve only groups of 4 ports.

Finally, section 6 is about mixing udp and tcp traffic on the DUT and 
measuring the latency for udp type of traffic while measuring the 
goodput on the tcp type of traffic.

We consolidate the feedback received so far and want to present it at
IETF90 during our BMWG meeting.

Thank you,
Jacob and Lucien
ramki Krishnan | 16 Jul 03:42 2014

Proposed IRTF Network Functions Virtualization Research Group (NFVRG) - first face-to-face meeting at Toronto

Please find more information on NFVRG including charter at -


Please find meeting location and agenda at -



Ramki on behalf of the co-chairs

bmwg mailing list
bmwg <at>
Banks, Sarah | 7 Jul 23:25 2014

In Service Software Upgrade Draft

Hello BMWG,
	The ISSU draft is in a pretty solid state, from the authors point of
view. We wanted to solicit a bit of feedback, and make sure we've covered
all bases. There was some discussion around the authors as to adding some
text around timers and counters in the draft - do you trust the DUT?
Should you confirm these outside of the DUT? Etc. Thoughts?

Kind regards,
Sarah & Fernando & Gery