Subject: [bmwg] Brief WG Status

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 21:22:48 -0400

BMWG,

A brief status and reminder of action item assignments,
follows:

We have the
Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology for Data Plane Convergence
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-papneja-bgp-basic-dp-convergence-03
on the table for adoption. So far, support has been a little light,
but there's still some time to read and reply...

We are expecting revised drafts for SIP device benchmarking,
please make some time to read these before we meet in Atlanta.

Various folks volunteered to read some outstanding drafts when
we met last.

Bill Cerveny and Benoit Claise volunteered to read the
Power Benchmarking Draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manral-bmwg-power-usage-02

Also, Mike Hamilton volunteered to read the Data Center Bridge draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-player-dcb-benchmarking-04

We need to find additional reviewers before we adopt either of
these drafts.

In other work, we have been attempting to move the RFC 2544 AS draft
through the IESG for >4months now. What was a straightforward development
to achieve consensus in the BMWG has seen unexpected resistance from
one IESG member. Fortunately, there are IETF processes designed to
deal with exactly this situation, and we will pursue that course if
necessary. This activity has taken-up more of my "IETF" time than
it should have, and it's an area where we need progress so that other
topics can get attention. There have been 3 revisions since IETF Last Call,
and there is likely to be one more. However, the central message of
the draft as embodied in the title has not changed.

Last but not least, we have a session scheduled on the IETF-85 agenda,
and so it's time for authors and other participants to consider how
we can best use our face2face meeting time.

regards,
Al
bmwg chair

---

From: Bill Cerveny <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:01:10 -0400

Below are my initial impressions regarding
"draft-manral-bmwg-power-usage-02", as requested at the last meeting. I
focused primarily on I-D design and content; I did not focus/comment on
grammatical/typographical issues. 

There is a lot of interesting content that could be referenced by
someone wishing to do power measurements on network devices. There is a
lot of background on challenges and factors which can impact power
measurement.

Although the introduction said there would be procedures and metrics
presented in the document, I didn't see what I would consider procedures
in the document. I expected to see something that resembled a discussion
of test setup, objectives and perhaps steps for performing measurements.

>From a strict document design perspective, some of the text in the
introduction probably doesn't belong in the introduction, although it is
interesting and useful material. In particular, the paragraph beginning
"The first step to obtain a network wide view is ..." probably does not
need to be in the introduction, although it does appear the paragraph
could be part of a procedure further in the document.

As you update the document, consider splitting the paragraph "Various
techniques have been defined ...", such that there is a new paragraph
that begins with the sentence "This document defines the ...". The
sentence "This document defines the ..." seems key to describing the
document and I discourage "hiding" it in the middle of a paragraph.

Section 6, "benchmark details", seems a bit shorter than I would have
expected for a benchmarking document. 

In conclusion, I think that the draft is interesting and has potential.
The most important thing is that the draft needs to have procedures
added or the introduction should not state that there are procedures in
the document.  

Regards,

Bill Cerveny

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:59:31 -0700

Hi Bill,

Thanks a lot for your comments.

The work was started way back around 2007, for a particular Tier-1 ISP who
wanted to reduce their power footprint. We looked at techniques like
Elastic tree, but realized the first thing was to be able to characterize
the power usage on a device.

I will work on your comments and try to update the draft. I did have some
interest from within the EMAN group, but things never materialized in the
past.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Bill Cerveny <[email-masked]> wrote:

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