[Technical Errata Reported] RFC5180 (1752)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5180,
"IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5180&eid=1752

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton <at> icann.org>

Section: 8

Original Text
-------------
The IANA has allocated 2001:0200::/48 for IPv6 benchmarking, which is a 48-bit prefix from the RFC 4773 pool.

Corrected Text
--------------
The IANA has assigned 2001:0002::/48 for IPv6 benchmarking, which is a 48-bit prefix from the RFC 4773 pool.

Notes
-----
There was an error in the assigned prefix.  This should have been 2001:0002::/48.  The previous prefix is
actually NOT part of the RFC 4773 pool.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please

I-D Action:draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth-04.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           : Methodology for Benchmarking IPsec Devices
	Author(s)       : M. Kaeo, T. Van Herck
	Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth-04.txt
	Pages           : 41
	Date            : 2009-04-03

The purpose of this draft is to describe methodology specific to the
benchmarking of IPsec IP forwarding devices.  It builds upon the
tenets set forth in [RFC2544], [RFC2432] and other IETF Benchmarking
Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts.  This document seeks to
extend these efforts to the IPsec paradigm.

The BMWG produces two major classes of documents: Benchmarking

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth-04.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.

_______________________________________________

I-D Action:draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term-11.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. Kaeo, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term-11.txt
	Pages           : 46
	Date            : 2009-04-03

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 [RFC1242], [RFC2544], [RFC2285] 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-11.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.

updated ipsec docs

The new version of the ipsec terminology (draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec- 
term-11.txt) and ipsec methodology (draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec- 
meth-04.txt) documents were posted today.

The following modifications were done from the previous versions and  
address all the comments made in the last year.

additions/changes for term-11 draft:
- change definition of IPsec Server to IPsec Gateway and in the issue  
section state
    "IPsec Gateways are also sometimes referred to as 'IPsec Servers'  
or 'VPN
    Concentrators'
- added NAT traversal to security context under IKE context as a MUST
- changed 'IPsec Tunnel Capacity' to explicitly state that each IPsec SA
   is associated with exactly 1 IKE SA
- IPsec througput definition - delete second paragraph in discussion
- Changed Phase 1 DoS resiliency rate definition to generalize on a  
rate of
   measurement that is to be measured as a graph of valid IKE Phase 1  
tunnel
   attempts per second (TAPS) and the percentage of failure

additions/changes for meth-04 draft:
- added text under 'Frame Type' section to explicitly recommend  
testing Nat-Traversal scenario which requires UDP encapsulation.
- changed text 'Testing of AH Transforms 1 and 2 MUST be supported'  
to 'If AH is supported by the DUT/SUT testing of AH Transforms 1 and  
2 MUST be supported'
- added clarification text to section 9.1 on throughput baseline and  

Re: updated ipsec docs

Many thanks for your persistence and efforts, Merike!

Thanks to Yaron, too, for his insightful comments.

Al
bmwg chair

At 02:36 PM 4/3/2009, Merike Kaeo wrote:
>The new version of the ipsec terminology (draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec- 
>term-11.txt) and ipsec methodology (draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec- 
>meth-04.txt) documents were posted today.

WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec term-11 and meth-04

BMWG,

This message begins a Last call on the IPsec terms and methods.

There little I can add to Merike's summary below, except a
few URLs and a date:

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term/
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth/

The Last Call with end on April 20, 2009.

Please weigh-in on whether or not these Internet-Drafts
should be given to the Area Directors and IESG for consideration and
publication as an Informational RFCs.  Send your comments
to this list or acmorton <at> att.com.

Al
bmwg chair

At 02:36 PM 4/3/2009, Merike Kaeo wrote:
>The new version of the ipsec terminology 
>(draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-term-11.txt) and ipsec methodology 
>(draft-ietf-bmwg-ipsec-meth-04.txt) documents were posted today.
>
>The following modifications were done from the previous versions and
>address all the comments made in the last year.
>
>additions/changes for term-11 draft:
>- change definition of IPsec Server to IPsec Gateway and in the issue

WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-02

BMWG:

A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on

"MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology"
draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-02.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth/

will be open through April 20, 2009.

This is the third WGLC on the draft.  It was developed as
draft-akhter-bmwg-mpls-meth-04.txt and adopted as a WG draft.
The second WGLC closed on 23 December, 2008.

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 or acmorton <at> att.com.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-mpls-forwarding-meth-02

Al
bmwg chair

Draft Minutes of BMWG Session at IETF-74

for your review and comments (by April 20, please):
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/bmwg.html

thanks to Aamer Akhter and Matt Zekauskas for taking notes!

Al
chair, bmwg

Re: Draft Minutes of BMWG Session at IETF-74

Hi Al,

There was an important point that was made regarding the SIP Performance
benchmarking that is not mentioned in the meeting minutes.  Carol Davids
accepted the action to build a matrix to compare the BMWG SIP Devices
Benchmarking terms to the PMOL End-to End Network SIP Benchmarking
terms.  It was agreed that neither document would move ahead to its
respective WGLC until this was done since the review could necessitate
changes in either document.  It was mentioned that alignment of these
documents would be facilitated by the fact that both BMWG and PMOL have
the same WG Chair.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: bmwg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Al Morton
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 5:20 PM
To: bmwg <at> ietf.org
Subject: [bmwg] Draft Minutes of BMWG Session at IETF-74

for your review and comments (by April 20, please):
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/bmwg.html

thanks to Aamer Akhter and Matt Zekauskas for taking notes!

Al
chair, bmwg

_______________________________________________

Re: Draft Minutes of BMWG Session at IETF-74

Scott,

Thanks for your feedback on the BMWG minutes.

What matters most is that the PMOL working group agreed
to start a Last Call on the draft during their session,
so that was done. It puts a time frame on comparisons
between the drafts, and that seems like a good thing.

We can all replay the audio to see what else might have been
said during the BMWG discussion on SIP. I had fairly detailed
notes from two note-takers to use when preparing the minutes.

I look forward to working on this topic, and hope we'll see further
contributions on the SIP metrics.

Al

At 08:05 PM 4/5/2009, Scott Poretsky wrote:
>Hi Al,
>
>There was an important point that was made regarding the SIP Performance
>benchmarking that is not mentioned in the meeting minutes.  Carol Davids
>accepted the action to build a matrix to compare the BMWG SIP Devices
>Benchmarking terms to the PMOL End-to End Network SIP Benchmarking
>terms.  It was agreed that neither document would move ahead to its
>respective WGLC until this was done since the review could necessitate
>changes in either document.  It was mentioned that alignment of these
>documents would be facilitated by the fact that both BMWG and PMOL have
>the same WG Chair.