headers
Internet-Drafts | 1 Jul 2003 13:21
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-03.txt

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		: Benchmarking Terminology for Routers Supporting 
                          Resource Reservation
	Author(s)	: K. Nemeth, I. Cselenyi, A. Korn
	Filename	: draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-03.txt
	Pages		: 16
	Date		: 2003-6-30
	
The purpose of this document is to define terminology specific to the 
benchmarking of the resource reservation signaling of IP routers. 
These terms can be used in additional documents that define 
benchmarking methodologies for routers that support resource 
reservation or reporting formats for the benchmarking measurements.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-03.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-03.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Internet-Drafts | 1 Jul 2003 13:21
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term-01.txt

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		: Terminology for Benchmarking IPsec Devices
	Author(s)	: M. Bustos et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term-01.txt
	Pages		: 53
	Date		: 2003-6-30
	
This purpose of this document is to define terminology specific to 
measuring the performance of IPsec devices.  It builds upon the 
tenets set forth in RFC 1242, RFC 2544, RFC 2285 and other IETF 
Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) documents used for 
benchmarking routers and switches.  This document seeks to extend 
these efforts specific to the IPsec paradigm.  The BMWG produces 
two major classes of documents: Benchmarking Terminology documents 
and Benchmarking Methodology documents. The Terminology documents 
present the benchmarks and other related terms. The Methodology 
documents define the procedures required to collect the benchmarks 
cited in the corresponding Terminology documents.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term-01.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Scott Poretsky | 1 Jul 2003 20:01

Re: Summary of changes to mcast .12 rev

Looks good to me.  Changes match as was discussed.

Scott

At 08:58 AM 6/30/2003 -0700, Debby Stopp wrote:
>Here's a summary of the changes from .12 rev to .13 rev:
>
>1) o The DUT/SUT MUST learn the appropriate unicast addresses; and"
>    to:
>    o  The DUT/SUT MUST learn the appropriate unicast and multicast
>addresses; and"
>
>
>2) "The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
>
>    o The Max/Min value
>    o The set of all latencies with respective time units
>related to the
>tested ingress and each tested egress DUT/SUT interface."
>
>    to:
>
>    "The following results MUST be reflected in the test report:
>    o The Max/Min value
>
>    The following results SHOULD be reflected in the test report:
>    o The set of all latencies with respective time units
>related to the
>tested ingress and each tested egress DUT/SUT interface."
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Scott Poretsky | 1 Jul 2003 20:13

Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-13

Kevin,
I believe that this Internet-Draft should be given to the Area Directors 
for consideration in
progressing the Draft to an Informational RFC.

Authors,
Great work!  Persistence is also a virtue.

Scott

At 12:04 PM 6/30/2003 -0400, Kevin Dubray wrote:

>BMWG:
>
>A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on "Methodology for IP
>Multicast Benchmarking,"
>
>        <draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-13.txt>
>
>will be open from 30 June 2003 through 5 July 2003.
>
>A WG Last Call was last issued on version 12 of this draft.
>
>Please weigh in on whether or not you feel that this Internet-Draft
>should be given to the Area Directors for consideration in
>progressing the Draft to an Informational RFC.  Send your comments
>to this list or kdubray <at> juniper.net.
>
>
>A URL for the Internet-Draft is:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Rajiv Papneja | 1 Jul 2003 21:25
Favicon

Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-13

I am also in agreement with Scott about pursuing this draft to an RFC
status.

 -Rajiv

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Poretsky" <sporetsky <at> avici.com>
To: "Kevin Dubray" <kdubray <at> juniper.net>; <bmwg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-13

> Kevin,
> I believe that this Internet-Draft should be given to the Area Directors
> for consideration in
> progressing the Draft to an Informational RFC.
>
> Authors,
> Great work!  Persistence is also a virtue.
>
> Scott
>
> At 12:04 PM 6/30/2003 -0400, Kevin Dubray wrote:
>
> >BMWG:
> >
> >A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on "Methodology for IP
> >Multicast Benchmarking,"
> >
> >        <draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-13.txt>
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Russ White | 2 Jul 2003 14:01
Picon
Favicon

Re: WG Last Call: OSPF Control plane convergence


> 1. In the page headings of all three documents it is stated "Manral, et.
> all".  This should be "Manral, et al".  A small nit, but an RFC should
> have this correct.

Fixed....

> 2.  The Terminology draft introduces new terms "Internal Measurement" for
> White-Box measurements and "External Measurement" for Black-Box
> measurements.  The Methodology draft actually refers to the terms
> "White-Box" and "Black-Box".  Can we just remove the terms "Internal
> Measurement"  and "External Measurement" from the Terminology draft?

I'm not certain we want to pull these? I wouldn't mind referring to some
other doc which defines them, but I think the discussion is possibly
valuable to those approaching this sort of testing for the first time.

Thoughts from the list?

> 3.  Terminology draft introduces new term "Multi-Device Measurement", but
> it is not used in the Methodology draft.  Can we just remove it from the
> Terminology draft?

Done.

> 4.  In the Methodology draft, Collector is mis-spelled at bottom of page
> 4 (appears "colelctor").

Fixed.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Internet-Drafts | 3 Jul 2003 17:28
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-05.txt

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		: Terminology for Benchmarking BGP Device Convergence in
                          the Control Plane
	Author(s)	: H. Berkowitz et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-05.txt
	Pages		: 42
	Date		: 2003-7-3
	
This draft establishes terminology to standardize the description of
benchmarking methodology for measuring eBGP convergence in the
control plane of a single BGP device. Future documents will address
iBGP convergence, the initiation of forwarding based on converged
control plane information and multiple interacting BGP devices. This
terminology is applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6. Illustrative
examples of each version are included where relevant.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-05.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-05.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Feher Gabor | 4 Jul 2003 11:34
Picon
Favicon

update: Benchmarking Terminology for Routers Supporting Resource Reservation

Hello BMWG-ers,

Let us call your attention to our draft, "Benchmarking Terminology for
Routers Supporting Resource Reservation", which has been updated and is
available under
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-03.txt

We've modified the draft according to the received comments, and we made
the whole terminology conform to the work going within the NSIS working
group. We have also made serious efforts to make the draft clearer. For
these reasons we've changed some titles in the terminology and excluded
some discussions that was out of scope. Nevertheless, the basic concept of
the terminology was not changed.

We are looking for your comments on this new version both here on the list
and in personal in Vienna.

Regads,
Gabor, Krisztian
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Al Morton | 7 Jul 2003 20:51
Picon
Favicon

Fwd: Tentative Agenda for BMWG at IETF-57

Here's the tentative meeting agenda we submitted today.
Comments by June 8th 8:30 AM EDT, please.

thanks, and sorry for the short turn-around,
Al

>---------------------------------------
>
>Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg)
>
>Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 1300-1400 and 1415-1515
>=======================================
>
>CHAIRS: Kevin Dubray <kdubray <at> juniper.net>
>         Al Morton <acmorton <at> att.com>
>
>AGENDA:
>
>1.   Working Group Status (Morton)
>
>2.   [Tentative] Discussion on OSPF Convergence Benchmarking WG Last
>      Call comments. Last call is over, but a few comments need
>      discussion.  Identification of remaining issues.  (R. White et al.)
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-term-04.txt
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-intraarea-05.txt
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ospfconv-applicability-03.txt
>      BMWG mail archive:
>      http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/bmwg/current/
>      Unofficial versions with latest comment resolutions are here:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kevin Dubray | 7 Jul 2003 22:15
Favicon

Re: Fwd: Tentative Agenda for BMWG at IETF-57

Scott Poretsky wrote:
 >
 > In Atlanta, Jerry presented "Automatic Protection Switching Benchmark
 > Terminology".  We had a 15 minute discussion.  The group concluded with
 > Kevin's agreement and affirmation that the proposed work was too broad
 > and MPLS should not be addressed in the same document as SONET APS and
 > RPR.  I am open to the MPLS Protection Methodology being covered under
 > this work item or considered a separate work item.  I guess we can
 > revisit it at the meeting.

 From the Atlanta BMWG minutes:

"Since protection could happen at various layers (or sub-layers), such as
SONET or MPLS, there was a discussion on how best to tackle this.  The
group gravitated to the idea that a single, common terminology document
with subsequent methodology documents for individual recovery
mechanisms (e.g., one for MPLS, one for APS, etc.) might be the way to go."

I believe the current effort proposes to conform to the above notions, no?
(I.e., single terminology spec; multiple, narrowly focused methodological
specifications?)
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane