[12:28:54] --- bmwgkd has joined
[12:29:59] --- bmwgkd has left
[12:31:10] --- acmacm has joined
[12:31:40] --- bmwgkd has joined
[12:32:02] * bmwgkd has changed the subject to: Materials for Today
[12:32:04] <acmacm> Bmwg starts at 13:00 Central Std Time in US
[12:32:14] <bmwgkd> Agenda: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/agenda?item=agenda65.html
[12:32:56] <acmacm> I see you got the config right, I just got in myself...
[12:33:16] <bmwgkd> :-)
[12:35:17] <bmwgkd> Presentation materials can be found here:
[12:35:22] <bmwgkd> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=65
[12:39:23] <acmacm> A revised version of the Protection Benchmarking Proposal was just uploaded
[13:11:56] <acmacm> (slides, of course)
[13:12:53] --- acmacm has left
[14:00:18] <bmwgkd> Getting ready to start. First presentation: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/bmwg-0.ppt
[14:04:10] <bmwgkd> Al Morton kicks off the meeting.
[14:05:32] <bmwgkd> Slide 2; Al solicits for a note taker.
[14:05:50] <bmwgkd> Al conscribes Diego as a note taker.
[14:08:06] <bmwgkd> Al proposed agenda per slide
[14:08:20] <bmwgkd> Slide 3: BMWG activity.
[14:11:13] <bmwgkd> Al and the ADs want a cross area review (perhaps from the security folks) with the hash I-D.
[14:11:51] <bmwgkd> Slides are off a bit wrt to I-D versions of IPsec work.
[14:12:23] <bmwgkd> Slide 4: Not a lot of word from LDP draft.
[14:12:52] <bmwgkd> Al harasses newly arriving attendees to sign blue sheet.
[14:13:11] <bmwgkd> FIB methodology was removed from goals.
[14:13:35] <bmwgkd> Initial individual contribution on IPv6 benchmarking.
[14:14:18] <bmwgkd> Moving to IGP dataplane presentation by Scott Poretsky.
[14:14:33] <bmwgkd> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/bmwg-1.ppt
[14:15:33] <bmwgkd> Slide 8
[14:16:08] <bmwgkd> Scott states he feels all list comments on igp drafts have been integrated.
[14:17:00] <bmwgkd> Slide 9: enumerates changes to -09 draft
[14:18:01] <bmwgkd> Slide 10: benefits from cross-area review by Sue Hares, slide reflects comment.
[14:19:30] <bmwgkd> Scott omitted the "cisco conversion" formula; Scott didn't want include, because very white box and sees outside the scope of BMWG... (good formula though.)
[14:19:53] <bmwgkd> Scott notes that Sue suggested formula as an appendix.
[14:20:29] <bmwgkd> Al wants Scott to doubleback with Sue and she if she's OK w/the omission.
[14:21:05] <bmwgkd> Slide 11: scott wants to know if work ready for IESG review; Al would like a WGLC.
[14:21:38] <bmwgkd> Jumping to Slide 12.
[14:22:01] <bmwgkd> Benchmarking devicdes under accelerated stress
[14:22:14] <bmwgkd> Scott focusing on terminology and methodolgy.
[14:22:35] <bmwgkd> Slide 13: really on version 08, not 07.
[14:22:53] <bmwgkd> Scott reviews changes to current version.
[14:23:24] <bmwgkd> Scott points out that he lets user specify how they couple or otherwise select the bench marks that the user employs.
[14:24:15] <bmwgkd> Scott: ready for WGLC on term? Scott working on comments from IETF64 on method. Hopes to submit in 4-6 weeks.
[14:25:21] <bmwgkd> AL: how many people read: 3; how many on reflector: about 12.
[14:26:05] <bmwgkd> Al asks Scott if it makes sense to WGLC term and meth together? Scott
[14:26:42] --- Yoshifumi Atarashi has joined
[14:26:59] <bmwgkd> asks for precedence? Yes other convergence work. Bert Wijnen thinks it makes sense to WGLC both docs together if possible.
[14:28:01] <bmwgkd> Hum check seems to reflect that WGLC both docs.
[14:28:12] <bmwgkd> together
[14:29:03] <bmwgkd> Jumping, Kafka-like, to Slide 2.
[14:29:37] <bmwgkd> DSMterm is at version 12,
[14:30:20] <bmwgkd> Slide 3. Terminology done wGLC; sheparding form done, going to IESG.
[14:30:37] <bmwgkd> Al to send "sheparding list responses" to list.
[14:31:28] <bmwgkd> dsm methodology: some baseline tests being cited
[14:31:46] <bmwgkd> Slide 5: scott explains baseline testcases.
[14:32:28] <bmwgkd> Slide 6: case w/congestion
[14:34:17] <bmwgkd> Scott wants input for any other testcases to add or additions to the methodology. Or even application notes.
[14:35:24] <bmwgkd> Al: this is a new draft, (kindof there was 00 -> 01)
[14:36:42] <bmwgkd> Al: any comments.
[14:37:59] <bmwgkd> Question from attendees: link congestion only, lots of other types of congestion, can't we embed hooks for the other types. Scott as commenter to write him, as there are multiple possible methodologies.
[14:38:39] <bmwgkd> Scott thinks congestion, btw, of virtual interfaces, is out of scope for this specific I-D.
[14:39:31] <bmwgkd> Al, anything for characterizing stream charactristics. EF vs BE vs...; Scott thinks might fit in the test considerations.
[14:40:26] <bmwgkd> Al thinks that would inject more realism to test.
[14:41:00] <bmwgkd> Scott thinks, yes, because of the wonderful VOIP world.
[14:42:35] <bmwgkd> Talk of IMIX vs. small, etc. Scott says great topic. Al says might not radically change the methodology, but may be consideration that should be reflected.
[14:43:27] <bmwgkd> Question: Ron Pashby - address the enabling vs. disablyling of QoS features characterization.
[14:43:31] <bmwgkd> Scott: yes.
[14:44:41] <bmwgkd> Commenter: IP precedence: is something be done for classification. cost at the edge even just to mark the traffic? Scott: Yes, the terminology does address; methodology doesn't.
[14:46:12] <bmwgkd> Al: we notice that reading the drafts is a good thing; but if you have experience trying some of this benchmarking stuff out, it's gold, so please give your feedback!
[14:47:38] <bmwgkd> IPsec benchmarking. (M. Kaeo) - no slides
[14:49:52] <bmwgkd> Thinks terminology is well baked. Methodology evolving. Forwarded to IPsecs folks to review and comme nt. Ikev1, v2 was reasonably controversial in so far as use IKEv1 w/manual keying vs. IKEv2 as a followon. Merike promises to produce a IKEv2 draft to address by next time.
[14:51:02] <bmwgkd> Question: IPV6 and IPsec and extension headers. Need to address? No
[14:51:38] <bmwgkd> other extension header, initial, other the one in the drafts. Merike suggests to take issues to the list.
[14:53:35] <bmwgkd> Scott - BMWG type question. More prose in IPsec methods than enumerated, is this OK? Merike if there's ambiguity OK, but syntax changes for syntax changes shouldn't be a motivator.
[14:54:26] <bmwgkd> Back to: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/bmwg-0.ppt and Milestone status (slide 6)
[14:54:56] <bmwgkd> And looking at the bottom of our charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/bmwg-charter.html
[14:55:09] <bmwgkd> Al notes some slipping.
[14:55:49] <bmwgkd> Al trying to trade off time for quality - which sometimes compromises our milestone dates.
[14:56:29] <bmwgkd> Al notes process changes, too, sheparding process, ID-tracker, etc.
[14:56:59] <bmwgkd> Al now talks to slide 6 of bmwg-0.ppt
[15:00:13] <bmwgkd> Diego: How do we compare to other WGs.
[15:01:45] <bmwgkd> Bert: Other wGs have similar problems, but a good technique is use a coordinated group deadlines, in addition to editor milestones.
[15:02:13] <bmwgkd> So, WGLC may be too late for a WG deliverable.
[15:03:41] <bmwgkd> Al test for suitability for earlier reivews to more active review I-Ds sooner.
[15:04:10] <bmwgkd> Al cites that some editors have done a great job solicit review help - need more of that.
[15:05:06] <bmwgkd> Slide 7 of bmwg-0 deck
[15:05:25] <bmwgkd> Al recaps Protection Proposal
[15:05:39] --- david has joined
[15:06:55] <bmwgkd> Samir is here to give status of FRR proposal. Slide set: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/bmwg-4.ppt
[15:07:23] <bmwgkd> Slide 2
[15:08:10] <bmwgkd> Would like to propose merger of poresky and vapiwala individually submitted I-D
[15:08:25] <bmwgkd> Slide 3: gives a flow of historical effort
[15:08:53] <bmwgkd> Slide 4: notion that work seeks to be complementary, not competing.
[15:09:08] <bmwgkd> Slide 5: positive feedback
[15:09:34] <bmwgkd> Lot's of suggestions: RSVP, backgrond traffic, etc
[15:10:05] <bmwgkd> Sldie 6: Next steps - appears interest
[15:10:25] <bmwgkd> Is there interest to make this a BMWG work item.
[15:11:13] <bmwgkd> Al: important point - lots of commentary on list. How many read? over 7
[15:11:44] <bmwgkd> Who wants to take this up? Lots. Who doesn't? No hums
[15:12:17] <bmwgkd> Al: we'll take the proposal to the list for formal consensus evaluation.
[15:12:52] <bmwgkd> Al: this demonstrates support as it was started in 2002 and need persists to the point that there's support to carry it forward.
[15:13:58] <bmwgkd> New topic: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/bmwg-3.ppt
[15:14:11] <bmwgkd> IPv6 benchmarking
[15:14:28] <bmwgkd> Ahmed Hamza, presenting.
[15:15:15] <bmwgkd> Slide 2: Goals
[15:16:09] <bmwgkd> Meant to complement RFC 2544, wrt v6-centric features, like extension headers.
[15:17:34] <bmwgkd> Slide 4:
[15:17:47] <bmwgkd> goes over scope.
[15:18:36] <bmwgkd> request to get IANA to cough up some IPv6 test address space.
[15:18:56] <bmwgkd> Extension headers is an important focus of this work.
[15:19:47] <bmwgkd> Slide 5....
[15:20:35] <bmwgkd> Slide 6: considerations
[15:22:22] <bmwgkd> Samir: no active work in IPv6 benchmarking, was an unofficial start by Martin; but Al points out we're basically starting anew.
[15:22:55] <bmwgkd> Gunter: do we need a terminlogy draft?
[15:24:52] <bmwgkd> Al: no need to replicate, but may need to define new concepts.
[15:25:07] <bmwgkd> Commentary: may be a good time to "revisit" latency.
[15:25:41] <bmwgkd> Scott Poretsky airs his support.
[15:26:55] <bmwgkd> Merike is in support, but has a few questions. Merike also thinks not to use a full /32 but a subset. Ron Pashby, could use a site local address...
[15:27:33] <bmwgkd> Merike: extensions headers - do we need all the extension headers, like source routing.
[15:28:13] <bmwgkd> Ahmed, doesn't think so, but is open to suggestions on how to address.
[15:28:53] <bmwgkd> Merike use separate extension headers to see individual effects.
[15:30:24] <david> From your remote AD: I have my doubts about a /32 for this purpose as well but it is really a detail that we can deal with later on. test allocation policy is currently reviewed so it is hard to give a clear answer what best to do in this situation.
[15:31:26] <bmwgkd> Ming: section 4.1 flow must be monitored - is any reason for MUST. Ahmed: any area open to suggestion, but looking to monitor CPU/MEM util, etc.
[15:31:46] <bmwgkd> David: your comment has been shown to Al.
[15:32:09] <david> Thanks, don't worry too much about it as it is not that important
[15:33:41] <bmwgkd> Al (as member not chair) on IMIX. Al thinks IMIX is a separable topic than IPV6 - so let's have a separate IMIX initiative if folks have the gumption to support the work.
[15:34:14] <bmwgkd> Gunter: agrees w/Al's proposal on how to handle IMIX.
[15:34:45] --- bert has joined
[15:35:07] <bmwgkd> Al: don't let IMIX be a rathole or a gate to other work.
[15:35:27] <bmwgkd> Gunter: let's exploit experience of v6OPs WG...
[15:36:07] <bmwgkd> Al: OK, chair hat back on, let's see a terminology draft. Then see if there's
[15:36:35] <bmwgkd> need to push forward as a maintenance effort or a new item.
[15:36:46] <bmwgkd> How many read? Quite a few.
[15:37:43] <bmwgkd> Al: let's do more homework and look into terminology then consider whether to take this new work on.
[15:38:38] <bmwgkd> Slide 9 of bmwg-0
[15:50:53] <david> Thanks!
[15:52:46] <bmwgkd> All done; See ya!
[15:52:58] --- Yoshifumi Atarashi has left
[16:05:11] --- bmwgkd has left
[16:09:11] --- bert has left
[16:20:03] --- david has left
[16:39:27] --- bert has joined
[16:39:35] --- bert has left