Benchmarking Methodology

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"

Spencer Dawkins Yes

Comment (2018-05-09 for -07-00)
I'm good for approval without external review, but wonder whether you think it's worth letting other SDOs know that BMWG has added virtualization to its charter.

Warren Kumari Yes

Comment (2018-04-25 for -07-00)
This new charter simply reflects what the WG is already doing...

Ignas Bagdonas No Objection

Deborah Brungard (was Block) No Objection

Comment (2018-05-21 for -07-01)
Thanks for addressing my concern.

Ben Campbell No Objection

Comment (2018-05-09 for -07-00)
I am curious how the discussion around Deborah's block will go. Once that is resolved, I do not object to approval without external review.

I agree with others that the milestone dates seem aggressive.

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2018-05-09 for -07-00)
External review does not seem to be needed for this change.

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Terry Manderson No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2018-05-09 for -07-00)
I am ok with no external review for this charter.

I would love to see something in the charter about interaction with existing WGs (as applicable), specially for the cases where documents are being produced for IETF technology.  I see EVPN in the list of milestones, for example; it would be great if the bess WG was at least informed/made aware/given a heads up, etc. on the work.  I don't think there's a need to list the WGs, but a generic sentence such as "consult with/inform other WGs as appropriate" would be great!

Adam Roach No Objection

Comment (2018-05-08 for -07-00)
I'm good with this going forward without external review.

On the milestones: "Aug 2018 - Methodology for Next-Gen Firewall Benchmarking to IESG Review" seems pretty aspirational, given that the WG has not yet adopted an associated document.

Martin Vigoureux No Objection