[ippm] Re: Joint BMWG/IPPM chartering

Hi Zafar, All,

 

I have attended BMWG for a while.  From my point of view, several pain points will be resolved by a merger:

 

1.	Benchmarking challenges move away from the user plane; in the future, the management plane, telemetry, and automation will keep us busy.  With technological evolution, the scope of BMWG and IPPM is naturally converging.


2.	Standards are better when they are well peer-reviewed. BMWG has had a steady but extremely small community; our drafts often take a long time and/or receive only a few reviews.  In IPPM, the community is a bit larger but could benefit from further growth, too, I believe.  In both WGs, mostly very specialized long-term domain experts attended (which may explain some of the resistance against a merger 😉).  I see benefits in cross-pollinating and broadening our respective views.


3.	The IETF experiences continued growth of the number of WGs, which requires resources, jams the meeting calendar, and fragments IETF work increasingly.  I feel we shall do our bit to clean up the mess.  BMWG was established in 1989, and IPPM in 1997 (if Gemini is right; I wasn’t there 👴). Both WGs have undergone five to six charter reformulations each over the last 30 years (again, trusting Gemini). Our work areas have evolved, and so could the structures.

 

Best regards, Carsten

 

 

 

From: Zafar Ali (zali) <zali=40cisco.com-Tr9gZwTxerDR74oF6e/[email protected]> 
Sent: April 28, 2026 8:13
To: Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Zafar Ali (zali) <[email protected]>
Subject: [bmwg] Re: Joint BMWG/IPPM chartering

 

Hi Thomas 

 

“Many" have argued against the merger of the WGs, including the point that the problem you are trying to solve cannot be solved by simply merging the WGs. 

 

The first question is - should the WGs be merged? 

What is wrong with keeping the WG as per the original intention (and addressing the root cause of the problem you are trying to solve with the merger)? 

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[email protected] <mailto:Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>  <Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[email protected] <mailto:Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> >
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 at 12:42 AM
To: Zafar Ali (zali) <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: RE: Joint BMWG/IPPM chartering

Dear Zafar,

 

Thanks a lot for the honest feedback. 

 

The meeting minutes for IETF 124, interim after and IETF 125 are available here:

 

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-125-ippm-202603190100/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-125-ippm-202603190100/

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2025-ippm-01-202511201300/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2025-ippm-01-202511201300/

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-124-ippm-202511051430/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-124-ippm-202511051430/

 

See below my feedback inline.

 

Best wishes

Thomas

 

From: Zafar Ali (zali) < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> 
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 10:05 PM
To: Graf Thomas, SCS-INI-NET-VNC-E2E < <mailto:Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>;  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected];  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
Cc:  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected];  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected];  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]; Zafar Ali (zali) < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Joint BMWG/IPPM chartering

 

	
Be aware: This is an external email.

 

Dear chairs and the WG 

 

I am surprised to see this email. 

 

Given the discussion in Montreal (WG session, ops area) and the following interim meeting, I the feedback from most was that these WGs should not be merged. I am not reiterating the comments from many (please see minutes, recording). 

 

TG> I have participated all 3 sessions and also the chartering session and I have seen different feedback. Some of them supportive. Some of them against. I believe we have both. As an individual, from the chartering session my impression was that both working groups have much in common but there are clear distinct features between IPPM and BMWG. However I believe this can be accommodated in a joint charter.

 

TG> As chairs we have started with IETF 125 to poll specific questions to gauge the possible pain points so that we can address them better. One clear outcome was that the time allocated did not facilitate enough time for discussions. The last minute additions in proposed work did not help, and was in the past already with IPPM a challenge. Therefore similar to other working groups we decided to add some buffer time next IETF in case discussions need more time and also requested a second session slot in case we need to accommodate for more proposed work.

 

I have not heard any consensus on the need for a merger (sorry if I missed it). 

 

TG> This is a proposed charter. Similar as with the join sessions we would like to understand from an actual charter proposal what the community feedback, proposals and possible concerns are.

 

TG> Attendance indicates that IPPM and BMWG needs to find ways to improve the allocated time and resources better. This is the driver between the joint sessions and proposed joint charter.

 

Are we putting cart before the horse? 

 

TG> Certainly not. I would appreciate your feedback on the proposed charter.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[email protected] <mailto:Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>  <Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[email protected] <mailto:Thomas.Graf-Zc0CTiu5wcBWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> >
Date: Sunday, April 26, 2026 at 4:02 AM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: [ippm] Joint BMWG/IPPM chartering

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/bmwg/about/

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ippm/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> 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> 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]