[ippm] Re: Joint BMWG/IPPM chartering

Hi, Tim:
Thanks for your input and comments, please see my reply inline below.
发件人: Tim Chown [mailto:[email protected]]
发送时间: 2026年4月27日 17:20
收件人: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
主题: [bmwg] Re: Joint BMWG/IPPM chartering

Hi,

I think this is a good, firm strawman and something that should definitely be taken forward. Thank you for the work in getting this far.

A few comments…

I don't understand the "the WG is responsible for documenting common security building blocks and guidance” line. What are these building blocks?  To someone just reading this charter, it’s not clear.  Security of measurement protocols?  Measurement of security appliances?  Something else?

[QW]: If you recall the interim meeting organized by IPPM&BMWG WG, one open issue is about common framework for both BMWG and IPPM, one typical example of such framework is Common
Common Security Framework, the big motivation behind is we do have some IPPM draft failing to pass through IESG review due to lack good security consideration, We believe BMWG could also
benefit from such common security framework.

I assume the nature of the work in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-qoo/ remains covered by the new charter. The text doesn’t explicitly mention quality assessment frameworks and scoring.

[QW]:I believe quality assessment framework and scoring is more related to this paragraph in the proposed Charter:
“
The WG will also produce terminology documents and recommendations concerning the key performance characteristics of internetworking technologies, or benchmarks for network devices, systems, and
services. In addition, the WG will specify related manageability aspects, such as YANG data models for configuration, operation, and Network Telemetry data export.
The work scope is limited to metrics and methodologies which are applicable to the IP and MPLS data plane and its upper layer protocols.
”
Some examples you suggested can be added.

Second, it would be a nice nod to Dave Täht to explicitly mention bufferbloat detection in the charter, with related work like in particular https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-responsiveness/.

[QW] Similarly, additional example can be added to the following paragraphs in the proposed Charter:
“
The WG is responsible for the development and maintenance of active, passive, and hybrid measurement protocols (such as Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP), Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), In Situ OAM (IOAM), Alternate Marking, and Hybrid Two-Step (HTS)).
”

The related WGs (well, RGs) should probably include maprg, both for the work it does that may lead to new proposals for protocol work, and its testing of drafts/protocols under development in the new combined WG.

[QW] I agree maprg is relevant, however usually we only add collaborated WGs from IETF in the specific WG Charter, If you have any example of specific WG charter with research group as related WG for coordination, please let us know.

And considering something I’m involved with at the moment, is measurement of jumbo frame MTU operation in scope for this WG, e.g., testing for 9000 MTU end-to-end?   It’s not clear to me from reading the text.  Do we need to add any paragraph about what’s NOT in scope, or do we leave it up to the WG to decide what it can adopt?

[QW] If my understanding is correct, jumbo frame is layer 2 frame, Quote text from the proposed charter
“
Layer 2 applications can be covered as well but require explicit approval from the Responsible Area Director. This WG does not specify encapsulations required for measurements over non-IP and non-MPLS layers.
”
I think it is in the scope but require approval from AD.

I’ve not added these as issues.

Tim

On 26/04/2026, 09:02, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Dear BMWG and IPPM,

On behalf of the chairs. At IETF 125 we had a public joint chartering session onsite. In that session and during the discussion afterwards, we consolidated and simplified the existing charters

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/about/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ippm/about/

for a new joint charter proposal

https://github.com/ietf-ippm/wg-charter/blob/main/ippm-bmwg-joint.md

Out of this exercise we highlight that the following items are specific to BMWG or IPPM today:

- applications running over public and private networks
- including endpoints in production and lab environments. Where in lab environments the testing procedures ensure consistent, reproducible, and reportable benchmarking results.
- The WG will also produce terminology documents and recommendations concerning the key performance characteristics of internetworking technologies, or benchmarks for network devices, systems, and services.

We added new items to the charter based on recent working group discussions

-           IETF protocols at different layers
-           documenting common security building blocks
-           The WG will also produce terminology documents and recommendations
-           the WG will specify related manageability aspects, such as YANG data models for configuration, operation, and Network Telemetry data export
-           Layer 2 applications can be covered as well but require explicit approval from the Responsible Area Director.
-           It specifically coordinates with other WGs such as MPLS, 6MAN, and SPRING where data plane encapsulations are specified.
-           The WG liaises with other Standards Development Organizations such as ITU-T, IEEE, 3GPP, and BBF and reaches out to other operator communities such as NANOG, RIPE, and APRICOT.

Many thanks to Carsten, Luis, Med, Qin, Marcus, Giuseppe and Sarah for this proposal.

We would like to get reviews and feedback on the joint charter proposal from both working groups. And in particular, we also invite BMWG and IPPM authors to check whether the newly proposed joint charter covers their work accurately.

-           Do you believe that this joint charter covers your existing and future work?
-           Do you believe it describes and scopes accurately the current and future work of both working groups?
-           Is something missing or should be omitted? Why?

Please comment on this thread and also feel free to open change proposals here: https://github.com/ietf-ippm/wg-charter/issues

We intend to follow up also with the MPLS, 6MAN, and SPRING working groups once this discussion is stabilizing.

Best wishes
Qin, Giuseppe, Sarah, Marcus and Thomas

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]