[17:14:53] --- bmwgkd has joined
[17:17:21] <bmwgkd> Meeting agenda & slides can be found here:
[17:17:25] <bmwgkd> https://onsite.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=64
[17:18:30] <bmwgkd> Al solicits a minute taker and volunteers Matt Z.
[17:20:16] <bmwgkd> Agenda bashing - need some reshuffling for agenda items.
[17:20:49] <bmwgkd> Chair agenda slides, slide #2;
[17:21:54] <bmwgkd> AD Kessens wants the milestone status, first.
[17:24:53] <bmwgkd> Slide 6: Milestone status - proposed milestones, sort of, based on presumed misses... Chairs propose to rev milestones w/a year, progress made, but still not done. One exeception, kill FIB methodology due to lack of interest/support.
[17:26:13] <bmwgkd> Scott P - good idea - put up or shutup, but announce on list. Chairs will do just that.
[17:27:52] <bmwgkd> Accelerated Test work to WGLC. What happend to considerations? Master term then subject-oriented method docs.
[17:28:12] <bmwgkd> Hash & stuffing? Editors asking for WGLC.
[17:29:29] <bmwgkd> Dec 06 for DSM method. Adjust Accelerated Router tests to be in sync (not right) now. Feb 06; remember to wipe consideration doc.
[17:30:27] <bmwgkd> July 06 for new EBGP/OPsec plugings for accelerated I-Ds.
[17:30:59] <bmwgkd> Dec 05 is tracking well for IPsec work.
[17:32:16] <bmwgkd> AD: make realistic deadlines; wants docs, names, and commitments. "Yes, I will do this work by that date." Be sure to prune dead limbs from the milestones.
[17:33:52] <bmwgkd> AL: more audience participation is required to move things along more timely.
[17:34:30] <bmwgkd> Slide 7: Charter Text discussion. Al: charter is currently very broad. Focus on systems and services.
[17:40:04] <bmwgkd> Slide 8: AD Wijnen pointed out in paris isn't BMWG solely focus on IETF output? AL: how best to reflect emphasis, given we're not writing L1 protocols? Thoughts? Scott P: good to evaluate technologies that have impact on L3, so notion of "exclusively IETF protocol" is not realistically restrictive. AD Kessens: I like the restrictive. Kevin: how to divorce IETF technology from underlying service - likes the notion of primarily IETF.
[17:44:08] <bmwgkd> Slide 9: Delta from the net slides, addition of "reliability tests? from a set of tests that aren't necessarily benchmarks. Assumption of compliance. So, compliance are out. How about reliability? Does it fall well under the umbrella. 5 nines is a common reliability "standard", but extreme variation in industry on how the measurement is conducted.
[17:49:52] <bmwgkd> Comments? Scott P: what do you see needs to be done to resolve this slide? Al: are these in or out of our charter? Kdubray: we need AD guidance as to what test are in or out of IETF and/or BMWG. Kessens: I like narrow scope, but is there concrete examples of these area of test? Poretsky, doesn't believe there's any current BMWG work on reliability. But think it's appros to cite limitation. Kessens: so rule it out reliability.
[17:51:11] <bmwgkd> Al Morton: seems to be tests that want to use benchmarks to communicate relaibility or stability.
[17:53:00] <bmwgkd> Kessens: would like it be very restrictive, but use group input to help drive group direction, as opposed to relying on AD guidance.
[17:55:31] <bmwgkd> Slide Deck, "Poretsky Slides," slide18. Scott re-emphasizes the notion that accelerated testing IS a fit for this WG; and it's that he's a proxy for "many, many" people that have interest and this isn't a Poretsky-only thing.
[17:56:51] <bmwgkd> Slide 19 shows an overview of how the different protection documents are thematically related.
[17:58:13] <bmwgkd> Slide 21: reiterates current charter cogency with work items.
[17:59:20] <bmwgkd> Scott reiterates failover time as a benchmark
[18:06:33] <bmwgkd> Slide 22 solicits input whether for protection work to become BMWG work item? Al: comments? Who's read terminology FOR protection benchmarking? 2. Kessens: worried about level of support. Al: there's a lot of folks who have been authored. Poretsky: folks don't read until WGLC, and there been plenty of interest on the list. Kessens: there's a difference between interest and commitment. Kaeo: use cross posting and have folks post to the list.
[18:08:40] <bmwgkd> Al first time attenders? 2, but those two read the I-Ds. Appeal for participation. So tell your friends
[18:10:25] <bmwgkd> Kessens final thoughts: the WG should figure it's own direction...
[18:12:56] <bmwgkd> Kaeo: the IPsec meth slides (not on web). Believe both term and meth are in sync.
[18:14:52] <bmwgkd> IKE capacity still needs work, ran out of time.
[18:16:11] <bmwgkd> Current Benchmarks slide shows basic metrics flavors (baseline, IPSec, IPsec encrypt/decrypt and mapping to actual benchmakrs.
[18:18:00] <bmwgkd> Merike: lots of confusion on IPsec, benchmarking IPsec need to be clear.
[18:18:50] <bmwgkd> Consideration slide: authors asking for id of missing benchmakrs; consensus on test parameter, secuity constext and frame formats.
[18:20:43] <bmwgkd> RFC4021 IKEv1 requirements will help with test specification, by limiting transforms sets. But we need to understand the required transformed from that set. Comments:
[18:26:16] <bmwgkd> Scott Poretsky: did a thorough review, but concern of exclusion of IKEv2. So what up with that? Merike: significant upgrade of work and not backward compatible, so use a second add on document on subject on IKEv2, but she's an advocate of IKEv2 for IPv6. Scott gives his oK but wants to see the document as Benchmaking for IKEv1 w/manual set up of SAs. Merike says don't need to change title as its disclosed in stated scope of work. Merike explicitly said she won't write the IKEv2 doc. Merike is hesistant does the
[18:27:22] <bmwgkd> added work that scott is proposing really hampering folks for understanding.
[18:30:05] <bmwgkd> To scott's earlier comment about "David's company" as possibly having interest in IKEv2, Kessens says just to be clear, he leadership is independent of his company's direction - just for full disclore.
[18:30:18] <bmwgkd> Merike asking for folks input.
[18:31:14] <bmwgkd> She put request for feedback back into reflector
[18:31:58] <bmwgkd> Back to agenda slides, slide 3
[18:33:43] <bmwgkd> Ambiguity for forwarding delay for dsmterm, according to Al.
[18:34:20] <bmwgkd> Lot's of bad jokes on hash and stuffing - it's on the plate.
[18:34:45] <bmwgkd> Al reinforces the use of review templates going forward.
[18:35:39] <bmwgkd> Scott P: dsmmeth-00 should be arriving soon.
[18:36:30] <bmwgkd> Al: Fib meth looking dead; LDP undead?
[18:37:30] <bmwgkd> Scott: reminds of precedence relationship of protection work to LDP work.
[18:39:59] <bmwgkd> kdubray: reminds group of draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-sheparding-05 a yardstick for document readiness to be moved to ADs.
[18:41:34] <bmwgkd> Poretsky slide deck, slide 5.
[18:42:28] <bmwgkd> IGP data plane: Mr Poretsky has no evidence of technical issues, just nits. But he asks that folks send timely input, please.
[18:45:10] <bmwgkd> Slide 7.Al asked that input be put to the list (like T. Ericcson's); scott believes it is. Scott again implore the group for speedy review. Sue Hare's on the hook for review.
[18:46:58] <bmwgkd> Al: any questions or comments? Who's read the drafts? 3 folks. Matt Z. when is version 09 due; Friday.
[18:50:53] <bmwgkd> Slide 13 of Accelerated Router Testing. Scott presenting in OPsec group.
[18:51:53] <bmwgkd> Slide 14: Scott goes through example.
[18:52:29] <bmwgkd> Slide 15: Start and Instability conditions examples.
[18:55:10] <bmwgkd> Slide 16: Example benchmarks.
[19:00:42] <bmwgkd> Slide 17: Scott: is term and meth ready for WGLC?
[19:01:22] <bmwgkd> Al Morton: who read drafts? 2. Same 2.
[19:02:03] <bmwgkd> Jay: likes I-Ds.
[19:02:40] <bmwgkd> Al goes back to slide 16, the trial examples.
[19:03:40] <bmwgkd> Recovery time: sample time for forwarding rate might be accurate for scope of instrumented entity.
[19:05:21] <bmwgkd> Al: when we have multiple benchmarks how interpret?
[19:05:34] <bmwgkd> White: didn't we have an applicability statement?
[19:06:04] <bmwgkd> Scott: most of that guidance is in hte current methodology doc.
[19:09:53] <bmwgkd> kdubray: burden is on reporting. e.g. mandate reporting devices config. show stats may have poll has as much
[19:10:45] <bmwgkd> item on box vs the other. White: more on stats config would be a greath thing.
[19:11:48] <bmwgkd> AL: degradation rate: a calculated delta. But maybe should be called Forwarding rate degradation.
[19:12:52] <bmwgkd> 2 major recommendations from chairs moved to WGLC so it can be formally reviewed. Second, don't worry about the followon components drafts until we get closure on the master work.
[19:14:29] <bmwgkd> Jay: talking about online/insertion of FRUs? Thought to be difficult for normalized applications.
[19:18:08] <bmwgkd> Action Items: charter update, milestone updates, new work proposals, Merike posting a message about IkeV2 and that current set of docs is restricted to IKEv4; hash I-D to WGLC; and endless thanks to Matt Z for his minutes notes.
[19:18:13] <bmwgkd> Thank you and good night.
[19:21:38] --- bmwgkd has left