Summary

  • On 29 October, the IESG approved the Benchmarking & Performance Measurements charter. Datatracker now lists BPM as an active group and successor to BMWG and IPPM.
  • BPM is responsible for maintaining the two predecessor groups’ published RFCs and BCP 170. The approved charter assigns it generic measurement protocols and describes collaboration with groups handling technology-specific procedures.

A new working group inherits a name, a mailing list and a technical archive. In BPM’s case, the IETF has placed two bodies of published standards under one maintenance mandate. The charter approved on 29 October makes the Benchmarking & Performance Measurements Working Group the successor to the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group and IP Performance Measurement Working Group.

The handover is specific. BPM is responsible for maintaining RFCs published by both concluded groups, including advancing Proposed Standards to Internet Standards and Informational RFCs to Best Current Practice documents. It also takes responsibility for maintaining BCP 170, the IETF guidance on developing performance metrics. The group’s remit now covers stewardship of an existing technical record and work on new measurements.

The charter then divides the operating map. BPM maintains generic performance-measurement protocols and their extensions. It collaborates with working groups whose work concerns procedures specific to their technologies; the charter names MPLS, SPRING, INTAREA and 6MAN. It also calls for feedback from other operations groups and close work with the Performance Metrics Directorate. The document puts that cross-group interface in writing through specific maintenance and collaboration duties.

That wording matters because an earlier proposed version used a broader verb. Revision 00-02 said BPM “coordinates generic benchmarking and performance measurement efforts within the IETF.” In a 28 September review, Gunter Van de Velde argued that this could assign more authority than BMWG or IPPM had held: their charters described consultation, information and input, not a power to direct or dispatch work across the IETF. The approved text describes generic protocol maintenance and collaboration with technology-specific groups.

The history logs both the concern and the later text, but does not identify one comment as the cause of the final wording.

The practical test begins with the inherited RFCs. A working group that can maintain standards and guide status changes can shape what gets revised, what remains stable and which methods become common reference points. BPM now has that duty in black and white. Its next maintenance decisions will show how the new group handles the technical inheritance it has just received.

Sources