[ippm] Re: Joint BMWG/IPPM chartering

Hi Thomas,
thank you for sharing the updated proposals. I appreciate the work put into
the proposal. I read the proposed charter for the new WG, please kindly
consider my notes below:

   - The xxxx xxxx Working Group (xxxx WG) develops and maintains metrics,
   methodologies, and protocols that can be applied to the quality,
   performance, and reliability of data delivery services and applications
   running over public and private networks using IETF technologies.

While I agree that this is consistent with the IPPM WG's work, I cannot see
how it applies to the scope of work performed in the BMWG. I have raised
this concern several times: one of the major gaps between the two WGs is
the environments for which the methodologies and procedures they specify
are intended. The methodologies developed by the BMWG, AFAICS, from its
current charter, are applicable in the lab environment, where an observer
fully controls the network in all aspects, including configuration, offered
payloads, and any changes to them. On the other hand, methodologies and
protocols developed by the IPPM WG are intended for production networks,
public or private, to provide operators with insights into network
conditions with as little disturbance as possible to payloads. I don't
think this statement closes the gap.


   - Where in lab environments the testing procedures ensure consistent,
   reproducible, and reportable benchmarking results.

And what is produced in a real production network? Would someone will
measure, for example, how fast an implementation learns 100000 prefixes in
a live network? Or what's the rate of MAC flushes in EVPN that serve a
subscriber? This is another manifestation of the gap I see between the
objects of study for the IPPM and the BMWG. And I don't see that the gap
was closed or even narrowed.


   - The xxxx WG fosters commonality and comparability of metrics and
   measurements across IETF protocols at different layers.

This is a very appropriate clarification that could be in place before the
first sentence in the preceding paragraph, i.e., before
The methodologies cover management, control, and forwarding planes and they
apply to hardware, virtualized, and containerized network infrastructure
(such as Data Center network fabric, SDN controllers, routers, and
firewalls), including endpoints in production and lab environments.


In summary, my impression of the updated proposal for the new WG's charter
is that the gap between the respective groups' areas of study remains. If
the leadership sees a benefit in holding joint sessions during f2f
meetings, I think that can be done without formally merging the IPPM and
BMWG.

Regards,
Greg


On Sun, Apr 26, 2026 at 1:02 AM <Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[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]
>

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