Subject: [bmwg] Protection Benchmarking

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:22:04 -0500

BMWG-ers,

Two documents for Protection Benchmarking have been posted to the BMWG
mailing list.  These are as follow:

draft-kimura-protection-term-02.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kimura-protection-term-02.txt

Now referred to as Term draft.

and 

draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-01.t
xt
Now referred to as Meth draft.
Since Term and Meth drafts are separate proposed work items for Protection
benchmarking it is important for the BMWG to decide how to proceed.  The
authors of both drafts have worked together to create a single work item,
but the differences of the two drafts have prevented agreement.  The issues
at hand are as follow:
1. Should the BMWG deviate from other IETF working groups ?  
MPLS already has existing terms.  The Meth draft uses the existing MPLS
terms.  Every term that the Term draft uses has a different, yet equivalent
term already defined in existing MPLS RFCs.  Should the BMWG deviate from
other IETF working groups when standardizing benchmarking of the
functionality that another working group developed?

2. Is Sub-IP is too open-ended for one work item? 
The Meth draft is focused solely on MPLS.  The Term draft is intended for
"sub-IP" protection mechanisms which is below layer 3.  Protection
mechanisms are very different for SONET APS, VRRP, Link Aggregation, MPLS,
etc. Should a single BMWG work item attempt to address all of these?  An
analogy is Convergence benchmarking; BMWG has separate work items for BGP
Convergence, OSPF Control Plane Convergence, and IGP Data Plane Convergence
benchmarking.

3. Should IETF develop benchmarking documents for technologies developed by
standards bodies, such as IEEE?  MPLS is an IETF defined technology.  SONET
APS, VRRP, and Link Aggregation are standards specified by organizations
such as IEEE.  

4.  Since progress has been made specifically with MPLS Methodology, should
the BMWG focus its efforts for Protection mechanisms benchmarking on MPLS
first?

Your comments to the mailing list are most encouraged.
Thanks!
Scott

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: "Rajiv Papneja" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:33:49 -0500

Now Sub-IP consists of only TEWG, IPO and GSMP. MPLS and Other related
technologies, like GMPLS (CCAMP) have been moved to Routing, hence the
protection mechanisms for GMPLS and MPLS are treated in respective
working groups but under the routing umbrella. It makes more sense to
have MPLS protection mechanisms methodology to be associated with MPLS
terms rather than under the Sub-IP terms as Scott mentioned.
 
 -Rajiv 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 5:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [bmwg] Protection Benchmarking

BMWG-ers,

and 

draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-
01.t
xt
Now referred to as Meth draft.
Since Term and Meth drafts are separate proposed work items for
Protection
benchmarking it is important for the BMWG to decide how to proceed.  The
authors of both drafts have worked together to create a single work
item,
but the differences of the two drafts have prevented agreement.  The
issues
at hand are as follow:
1. Should the BMWG deviate from other IETF working groups ?  
MPLS already has existing terms.  The Meth draft uses the existing MPLS
terms.  Every term that the Term draft uses has a different, yet
equivalent
term already defined in existing MPLS RFCs.  Should the BMWG deviate
from
other IETF working groups when standardizing benchmarking of the
functionality that another working group developed?

2. Is Sub-IP is too open-ended for one work item? 
The Meth draft is focused solely on MPLS.  The Term draft is intended
for
"sub-IP" protection mechanisms which is below layer 3.  Protection
mechanisms are very different for SONET APS, VRRP, Link Aggregation,
MPLS,
etc. Should a single BMWG work item attempt to address all of these?  An
analogy is Convergence benchmarking; BMWG has separate work items for
BGP
Convergence, OSPF Control Plane Convergence, and IGP Data Plane
Convergence
benchmarking.

3. Should IETF develop benchmarking documents for technologies developed
by
standards bodies, such as IEEE?  MPLS is an IETF defined technology.
SONET
APS, VRRP, and Link Aggregation are standards specified by organizations
such as IEEE.  

4.  Since progress has been made specifically with MPLS Methodology,
should
the BMWG focus its efforts for Protection mechanisms benchmarking on
MPLS
first?

---

From: "Rajiv Papneja" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:33:49 -0500

-Rajiv 

-----Original Message-----

BMWG-ers,

and