Subject: [bmwg] Resource Reservation Methodology

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:17:32 -0400

BMWG,

As a follow-up to our session in Prague, where we discussed:

>4.  Benchmarking Resource Reservation Mechanisms  (Krisztian Nemeth)
>     draft-ietf-bmwg-benchres-term-08            RFC Ed Queue
>     What was accomplished, what is ahead...

Please contact Krisztian Nemeth at
<[email-masked]>

if you'd like to join some early discussions and/or the future
efforts to prepare a methodology draft.

Feel free to CC: me, so I know who is interested.  Also, feel free to
use the bmwg-list for any general comments or discussions on the scope
of this effort.

Thanks to all who contributed to a successful meeting in Prague!
Meeting minutes will be available soon.

regards,
Al
bmwg co-chair

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

---

From: Andras Korn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:52:13 +0200

On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:17:32PM -0400, Al Morton wrote:

Hi,

> >    What was accomplished, what is ahead...

For the benefit of those who didn't follow that draft, I'm one of its
authors.

> use the bmwg-list for any general comments or discussions on the scope

What I'd be interested in hearing about is whether you think a single
methodology document should try to address all reservation protocols in
general, or does the variety warrant separate documents for each protocol,
or some protocols?

In particular, I see the conformance testing issue as rather protocol
dependent, but if we are to determine the scalability limits of a device, we
must be able to say at what load level it loses its ability to conform to
protocol specifications.

Any thoughts?

András

-- 
                 Andras Korn <korn at chardonnay.math.bme.hu>
                 <http://chardonnay.math.bme.hu/~korn/>	QOTD:
             The trouble with bigamy is having two mothers-in-law.