Subject: RE: FW: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-10.txt

From: "Perser, Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:56:43 -0800

Debby (and other authors),

I have run across a similar problem with our bmwg-dsmterm-04 draft.  An
issue that the authors brought up, discuss, and resolved a year ago
resurfaced.

What I forgot to do was incorporate why/how we resolved the issue into
bmwg-dsmterm-04 text.  In the upcoming version 5, there is an extra
paragraph on why delay is a non-deterministic indicator for congestion.

I suggest that you incorporate the Oct 2001 thread into your draft.  Then
you can refer them to the draft instead of the reflector.

Jerry.

>This was discussed at length back in Oct 2001 - please see thread
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/bmwg/current/thrd10.html
for
>details.  I believe that if you combine:
>     The offered load per each DUT/SUT port MUST not exceed the maximum
>     bandwidth capacity of any configured receive DUT/SUT ports.

___________________________________________________________ 
Jerry Perser                         Spirent Communications
Director of Test Methodology         SmartBits Division 
Phone: 818.676.2320                  26750 Agoura Road 
Lab:   818.676.2337                  Calabasas, CA, 91302 
Cell:  818.292.6457                  Corp:  818.676.2300

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

---

From: "Perser, Jerry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:56:43 -0800

Jerry.

for