Subject: RE: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:10:13 -0400

I think this is "interesting work".  When you make mention of a test bed
with 200 nodes then I seriously think that this work is inappropriate for
the BMWG.  One important criteris for BMWG work items is reproducibility -
so we would need to agree on # of nodes and their interconnection if we were
to proceed.

Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ White [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 9:32 PM
To: Howard C. Berkowitz
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Is the BMWG a proper home for this I-D?

But.... Back on the original question....

I've not heard too many people say if they think this specific draft (the
network benchmarking considerations draft) belongs here or not. I'd like it
to, and to find some volunteers to add sections and clean things up as
needed. The section on statistics, for instance, and other possible things
people think of in this sort of testing.

Thoughts (anyone on list, not just Howard!)?? :-)

:-)

Russ

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

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

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

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:44:15 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

My impression is that it's not the size of the network that matters, but
rather the focus of the test--lab (benchmark) or real world (IPPM). There
will be overlap here, and we need to work out how to handle that, somehow
(?)....

:-)

Russ

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:44:15 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

:-)

Russ