Subject: [Sip] Fwd: [bmwg] WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (bmwg)

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 08:16:44 -0700

If folks have comments on this they now would be a good time to send  
them  -.. the BMWG is planning on taking on some SIP work. It will not  
be possible to schedule bmwg meetings such that don't conflict with  
RAI meetings thought we can try to keep them from conflicting with SIP  
and SIPPING. The message say July 9 but I suspect that things received  
by IESG before July 15 will be considered.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Date: July 2, 2008 2:30:02 PM PDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: [bmwg] WG Review: Recharter of Benchmarking Methodology  
> Working Group (bmwg)
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
>
> A modified charter has been submitted for the Benchmarking Methodology
> Working Group (bmwg) working group in the Operations and Management  
> Area
> of the IETF.  The IESG has not made any determination as yet.  The
> modified charter is provided below for informational purposes only.
> Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([email-masked]) by
> Wednesday, July 9, 2008.
>
> Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (bmwg)
> =====================================
> Last Modified: 2008-06-13
>
> Current Status: Active Working Group
>
> Chair(s):
>    Al Morton <[email-masked]>
>
> Operations and Management Area Director(s):
>    Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
>    Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
>
> Operations and Management Area Advisor:
>    Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
>
> Mailing Lists:
>    General Discussion: [email-masked]
>    In Body: subscribe your_email_address
>    Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/index.html
>
> Description of Working Group:
>
> The major goal of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group is to  
> make
> a series of recommendations concerning the measurement of the
> performance characteristics of various internetworking technologies;
> further, these recommendations may focus on the systems or services  
> that
> are built from these technologies.
>
> Each recommendation will describe the class of equipment, system, or
> service being addressed; discuss the performance characteristics that
> are pertinent to that class; clearly identify a set of metrics that  
> aid
> in the description of those characteristics; specify the methodologies
> required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present the requirements
> for the common, unambiguous reporting of benchmarking results.
>
> To better distinguish the BMWG from other measurement initiatives in  
> the
> IETF, the scope of the BMWG is limited to technology characterization
> using simulated stimuli in a laboratory environment.
> Said differently, the BMWG does not attempt to produce benchmarks for
> live, operational networks. Moreover, the benchmarks produced by  
> this WG
> shall strive to be vendor independent or otherwise have universal
> applicability to a given technology class.
>
> Because the demands of a particular technology may vary from  
> deployment
> to deployment, a specific non-goal of the Working Group is to define
> acceptance criteria or performance requirements.
>
> An ongoing task is to provide a forum for discussion regarding the
> advancement of measurements designed to provide insight on the  
> operation
> inter-networking technologies.
>
> In addition to its current work plan, the BMWG is explicitly tasked to
> develop benchmarks and methodologies for the following technologies:
>
> * MPLS Forwarding: Develop specific methods to characterize the
> latency
> and forwarding performance of MPLS devices, extending the
> fundamental
> recommendations of RFC 1242 and RFC 2544 to this networking
> technology.
>
> * SIP Networking Devices: Develop new terminology and methods to
> characterize the key performance aspects of network devices using
> SIP,
> including the signaling plane scale and service rates while
> considering
> load conditions on both the signaling and media planes. This work
> will be harmonized with related SIP performance metric definitions
> prepared by the PMOL working group.
>
> Goals and Milestones:
>
> Done Expand the current Ethernet switch benchmarking methodology draft
> to define the metrics and methodologies particular to the general  
> class
> of connectionless, LAN switches.
>
> Done Edit the LAN switch draft to reflect the input from BMWG. Issue a
> new version of document for comment. If appropriate, ascertain  
> consensus
> on whether to recommend the draft for consideration as an RFC.
>
> Done Take controversial components of multicast draft to mailing  
> list for
>
> discussion. Incorporate changes to draft and reissue appropriately.
>
> Done Submit workplan for initiating work on Benchmarking Methodology  
> for
> LAN Switching Devices.
>
> Done Submit workplan for continuing work on the Terminology for Cell/ 
> Call
>
> Benchmarking draft.
>
> Done Submit initial draft of Benchmarking Methodology for LAN  
> Switches.
>
> Done Submit Terminology for IP Multicast Benchmarking draft for AD
> Review.
>
> Done Submit Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Performance for AD
> review
>
> Done Progress ATM benchmarking terminology draft to AD review.
>
> Done Submit Benchmarking Methodology for LAN Switching Devices draft  
> for
> AD review.
>
> Done Submit first draft of Firewall Benchmarking Methodology.
>
> Done First Draft of Terminology for FIB related Router Performance
> Benchmarking.
>
> Done First Draft of Router Benchmarking Framework
>
> Done Progress Frame Relay benchmarking terminology draft to AD review.
>
> Done Methodology for ATM Benchmarking for AD review.
>
> Done Terminology for ATM ABR Benchmarking for AD review.
>
> Done Terminology for FIB related Router Performance Benchmarking to AD
> review.
>
> Done Firewall Benchmarking Methodology to AD Review
>
> Done First Draft of Methodology for FIB related Router Performance
> Benchmarking.
>
> Done First draft Net Traffic Control Benchmarking Methodology.
>
> Done Methodology for IP Multicast Benchmarking to AD Review.
>
> Done Resource Reservation Benchmarking Terminology to AD Review
>
> Done First I-D on IPsec Device Benchmarking Terminology
>
> Done EGP Convergence Benchmarking Terminology to AD Review
>
> Done Resource Reservation Benchmarking Methodology to AD Review
>
> Done Net Traffic Control Benchmarking Terminology to AD Review
>
> Done IGP/Data-Plane Terminology I-D to AD Review
>
> Done IGP/Data-Plane Methodology and Considerations I-Ds to AD Review
>
> Done Hash and Stuffing I-D to AD Review
>
> Done IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology to AD Review
>
> REVISED
> Sept 2008 IPsec Device Benchmarking Terminology to IESG
> Review
> Sept 2008 IPsec Device Benchmarking Methodology to IESG
> Review
>
> Dec 2008 Net Traffic Control Benchmarking Methodology
> to AD Review.
> Dec 2008 Router Accelerated Test Terminology to IESG
> Review
> Dec 2008 Router Accelerated Test Methodology to IESG
> Review
>
>
> Dec 2009 Router Accelerated Test Method for EBGP to IESG
> Review
> Dec 2009 Router Acc. Test Method for Operational
> Security to IESG Review
> Feb 2009 Terminology For Protection Benchmarking to AD
> Review
> Feb 2009 Methodology For Protection Benchmarking to AD
> Review
> Jul 2010 Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking
> Methodology to AD Review.
>
> NEW
> April 2009 Methodology for MPLS Forwarding to AD Review.
> June 2009 Terminology for SIP Device Benchmarking to IESG
> Review.
> June 2009 Methodology for SIP Device Benchmarking to IESG
> Review.
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip