headers
Al Morton | 16 Feb 2012 14:43
Picon
Favicon

BMWG Status

BMWG,

This is a belated new year status message, as we see the calendar says
February (or your local-language equivalent) already!

First, I'm sure we all welcome Benoit Claise as incoming Area
Director. Benoit's background in performance and measurement
will certainly match well with our charter, so we can expect
his comments will continue Ron's and Dan's combined track record of
timely and relevant advice.

As we closed the book on 2011, two Working Group Last Calls ended
successfully:
draft-ietf-bmwg-ipflow-meth-07
draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-09
I've moved these drafts to "Publication Requested" state,
and editors should expect to do some clean-up following
Ron's AD-level review, at least.

We also agreed at our IETF-82 session to begin a WGLC on
draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-01
I've received yet another off-list comment that this memo's
statement continues to be relevant and needed, so the WGLC
will begin ASAP.

I've heard that many of our other active drafts are being
updated right now, so we should all plan to review new
drafts before too long.
 
So far, only   draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-01
has been updated (Thanks to Ilya Varlashkin for comments).

Beyond reviewing drafts as we always do, the following item
was identified for action in our IETF-82 minutes:
"Obtain Operator feedback on methods and metrics in BGP drafts"
I'd like to know if any progress was made on this.

Also, if anyone plans to attend one of the operator conferences
before we meet in Paris, and would be willing to solicit some
first-hand feedback on our on-going work, let us know!

regards,
Al
bmwg chair


_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Al Morton | 17 Feb 2012 17:55
Picon
Favicon

WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-01

BMWG,

This message begins a Last call on the draft titled:

RFC 2544 Applicability Statement:
Use on Production Networks Considered Harmful

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-01

The Last Call will end on March 12, 2012 (coincident with
the revised draft submission deadline for IETF-83).

We've been discussing this topic in BMWG for over a year.

As agreed when taking this draft as a BMWG chartered item,
AD Advisor Ron Bonica will call consensus on this WGLC
(since the current chair is a co-author).

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 Ronald Bonica <rbonica <at> juniper.net>.

Al
bmwg chair
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
David Newman | 17 Feb 2012 20:24

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-01

On 2/17/12 8:55 AM, Al Morton wrote:

> 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 Ronald Bonica <rbonica <at> juniper.net>.

I support the advancement of this document to the ADs and IESG.

dn
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bill Cerveny | 20 Feb 2012 03:33

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-01

Most (all) comments below are grammatical in nature:

Phrase "device under test" and acronymn "DUT" used interchangeably and "DUT" not defined on first usage: "
… it is clearly desirable to contain all DUT traffic within the ITE." in section 5 Actually come to think
of it, what is "DUT traffic"? Maybe use a more generic "test traffic" here instead of "DUT traffic"?

1) Introduction: 

When I first saw statement, "can only be reliably produced" I wanted to change it to "can only be reliably
replicated" or even to something like "can only be reliably produced (and reproduced)". But original
usage may be OK (open for comment).

Text '… the term "real-world" to refer production …' should probably be '… the term "real-world" to
refer to production …' (added second "to")

5) Advisory on RFC 2544 Methods in Real-world Networks

Minor tweak: "It is possible that some of the tests may prove to be valid …": Possibly change to "It is
possible that some of the tests may prove valid …" 

6) What to do without RFC 2544

The paragraph:

"   Other standards may help to fill gaps in telecommunication service
   testing.  For example, the IETF has many standards intended to assist
   with network operation, administration and maintenance (OAM), the
   ITU-T Study Group 12 has a recommendation on service activation test
   methodology
"

The comma after "(OAM)" seems like it should be least be a semi-colon and perhaps a period followed by 'The
ITU-T …' as a new sentence.

7) Security Considerations

Minor, minor tweak: Add "a" between "to testing in" and  "laboratory ITE" as such "to testing in a laboratory
ITE", since I think "ITE" is singular.

Otherwise, looks good,

Bill Cerveny

On Feb 17, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Al Morton wrote:

> BMWG,
> 
> This message begins a Last call on the draft titled:
> 
> RFC 2544 Applicability Statement:
> Use on Production Networks Considered Harmful
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-01
> 
> The Last Call will end on March 12, 2012 (coincident with
> the revised draft submission deadline for IETF-83).
> 
> We've been discussing this topic in BMWG for over a year.
> 
> As agreed when taking this draft as a BMWG chartered item,
> AD Advisor Ron Bonica will call consensus on this WGLC
> (since the current chair is a co-author).
> 
> 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 Ronald Bonica <rbonica <at> juniper.net>.
> 
> Al
> bmwg chair 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kenneth Green | 20 Feb 2012 06:24
Favicon

Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-01

There still seems to be some mixed usage of the phrases "production", "active" and "real-world".

My recollection was that earlier discussion resolved to replace "real-world" with "production". I see no
explanation given of the differences amongst these three adjectives and if indeed there is none, then
using only one will improve clarity.

Suggested edits:

5. Advisory...

OLD: And as discussed above, the tests will never produce a reliable or accurate benchmarking result.
NEW: And as discussed above, the tests will never produce a reliable or accurate benchmarking result on a
production (?real-world? ?active?) network.

Regards,
Kenneth

Kenneth Green
Solution Architect
Ixia

-----Original Message-----
From: bmwg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Al Morton
Sent: Saturday, 18 February 2012 3:55 AM
To: bmwg <at> ietf.org
Cc: Ronald Bonica
Subject: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-01

BMWG,

This message begins a Last call on the draft titled:

RFC 2544 Applicability Statement:
Use on Production Networks Considered Harmful

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-2544-as-01

The Last Call will end on March 12, 2012 (coincident with the revised draft submission deadline for IETF-83).

We've been discussing this topic in BMWG for over a year.

As agreed when taking this draft as a BMWG chartered item, AD Advisor Ron Bonica will call consensus on this
WGLC (since the current chair is a co-author).

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 Ronald
Bonica <rbonica <at> juniper.net>.

Al
bmwg chair 

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane