Subject: [bmwg] Document Action: 'Terminology for Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Devices: Basic session setup and registration' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-12.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 13:46:49 -0800

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Terminology for Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
   Devices: Basic session setup and registration'
  (draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-12.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Benchmarking Methodology Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Joel Jaeggli and Benoit Claise.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term/

Technical Summary

All networking devices have a limited capacity to serve their purpose.
In some cases these limits can be ascertained by counting physical
features (e.g., interface card slots), but in other cases standardized
tests are required to be sure that all vendors count their
protocol-handling capacity in the same way, to avoid specmanship. This
draft addresses one such case, where the SIP session-serving capacity
of a device can only be discovered and rigorously compared with other
devices through isolated laboratory testing.

This document describes the methodology for benchmarking Session -or-
This document describes the terminology for benchmarking Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) performance as described in SIP benchmarking
terminology document. The methodology and terminology are to be used
for benchmarking signaling plane performance with varying signaling
and media load. Both scale and establishment rate are measured by
signaling plane performance. The SIP Devices to be benchmarked may be
a single device under test or a system under test. Benchmarks can be
obtained and compared for different types of devices such as SIP Proxy
Server, Session Border Controller, and server paired with a media
relay or Firewall/NAT device.

Working Group Summary

There were periods of intense and constructive feedback on this draft,
but also several pauses in progress during development. The most
lively discussions were prompted by presentation of actual test
results using the draft methods, which require significant time
investment but are well- worth the result. These drafts serve a useful
purpose for the industry.

Document Quality

There are existing implementations of the method, as noted above.

Dale Worley conducted an early review, following BMWG's request of the
RAI area. Dales's comments were addressed in version 05. Henning
Schulzrinne commented on the original work proposal.

Personnel

Al
Morton is Shepherd, Joel Jaeggli is Responsible AD.