draft-ietf-bmwg-fr-term-05.txt   draft-ietf-bmwg-fr-term-06.txt 
Network Working Group J. H. Dunn Network Working Group J. H. Dunn
INTERNET-DRAFT C. E. Martin INTERNET-DRAFT C. E. Martin
Expires: February, 2001 ANC, Inc. Expires: August, 2001 ANC, Inc.
October, 2000 April, 2001
Terminology for Frame Relay Benchmarking Terminology for Frame Relay Benchmarking
<draft-ietf-bmwg-fr-term-05.txt> <draft-ietf-bmwg-fr-term-06.txt>
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and
its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working
documents as Internet-Drafts. documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
skipping to change at page 3, line 8 skipping to change at page 3, line 8
RFC 1242 "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices" RFC 1242 "Benchmarking Terminology for Network Interconnect Devices"
should be consulted before attempting to make use of this document. RFC should be consulted before attempting to make use of this document. RFC
1944 "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices" 1944 "Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices"
contains discussions of a number of terms relevant to the benchmarking contains discussions of a number of terms relevant to the benchmarking
of switching devices and should also be consulted. RFC 2285 of switching devices and should also be consulted. RFC 2285
"Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices" contains a number "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN Switching Devices" contains a number
of terms pertaining to traffic distributions and datagram interarrival. of terms pertaining to traffic distributions and datagram interarrival.
For the sake of clarity and continuity this RFC adopts the template for For the sake of clarity and continuity this RFC adopts the template for
definitions set out in Section 2 of RFC 1242. definitions set out in Section 2 of RFC 1242.
3. Requirements
In this document, the words that are used to define the significance of
each particular requirement are capitalized. These words are:
* "MUST" This word, or the words "REQUIRED" and "SHALL" mean that the
item is an absolute requirement of the specification.
* "SHOULD" This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there may
exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this item, but
the full implications should be understood and the case carefully
weighed before choosing a different course.
* "MAY" This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this item is
truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
particular marketplace requires it or because it enhances the product,
for example; another vendor may omit the same item.
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of
the MUST requirements for the protocols it implements. An
implementation that satisfies all the MUST and all the SHOULD
requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally
compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST requirements but not all the
SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally
compliant".
II. Definitions II. Definitions
The definitions presented in this section have been divided into two The definitions presented in this section have been divided into two
groups. The first group is formal definitions, which are required in groups. The first group is formal definitions, which are required in
the definitions of the performance metrics but are not themselves the definitions of the performance metrics but are not themselves
strictly metrics. These definitions are subsumed from other work done strictly metrics. These definitions are subsumed from other work done
in other working groups both inside and outside the IETF. They are in other working groups both inside and outside the IETF. They are
provided as a courtesy to the reader. provided as a courtesy to the reader.
1. Formal Definitions 1. Formal Definitions
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.25, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/