Vishwas Manral | 29 Sep 02:33 2010
Picon

TEEER spec

Hi folks,

I got comments that our spec
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manral-bmwg-power-usage-01 is similar
to the TEEER spec and we should try to merge the two before we proceed
on working on this document.

http://green.tmcnet.com/topics/green/articles/52647-atis-announces-three-new-energy-efficiency-standards-telecom.htm
is a link we found for explaining  the same, but couldn't get hold of
how to get things done. I was wondering if any of you could provide me
the document or give me details of the TEEER specification?

Going forward we would want this to be the specification used by every
Networking and Telecom gear produced. It will help a lot if we can get
hold of the specification.

Thanks,
Vishwas
Al Morton | 1 Oct 15:20 2010
Picon

Fwd: NomCom 2010-2011: Call for Nominations extended to October 8

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 <at> ietf.org>
To: IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce <at> 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 <at> 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 <at> 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 <at> ietf.org
twalsh <at> juniper.net

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
Al Morton | 1 Oct 16:05 2010
Picon

WG status

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 <iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org>
To: iesg <at> ietf.org, iab <at> iab.org, acmorton <at> 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 <acmorton <at> att.com>

Operations and Management Area Directors:
   Ronald Bonica <rbonica <at> juniper.net>
   Dan Romascanu <dromasca <at> avaya.com>

Operations and Management Area Advisor:
   Ronald Bonica <rbonica <at> juniper.net>

Mailing Lists:
   Address:      bmwg <at> ietf.org
   To Subscribe: bmwg-request <at> 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
	
Al Morton | 1 Oct 16:42 2010
Picon

BMWG Agenda Requests for IETF-79 in Beijing

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
Kevin Dubray | 1 Oct 16:58 2010
Picon

Re: WG status

  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,

Gmane