Re: [bmwg] WGLC on SIP Benchmarking Drafts (04)

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

shepherd's review of -meth-06:

Add Intended Status: Informational  in the draft header.  MUST fix.

Section 5.1, Note 3:  It seems that you may have intended a more
report-like formatting for the last two lines:
...
    The Test Organization interested in knowing how many times
    the EA was intended to send a REGISTER as distinct from how many
    times the EA wound up actually sending a REGISTER may wish to record
    the following data as well: Number of responses of the following
    type: 401: _____________ (if authentication turned on; N/A otherwise)
    407: _____________ (if authentication turned on; N/A otherwise)

maybe
    the following data as well: Number of responses of the following
    type:
    401: _____________ (if authentication turned on; N/A otherwise)
    407: _____________ (if authentication turned on; N/A otherwise)



At 12:54 PM 12/10/2012, Al Morton wrote:
>BMWG:
>
>This is the last day to review the SIP drafts under WGLC.
>
>As part of document shepherd review, I noted the following
>gripes-worth-fixing from the nit-checker routine,
>(no offense to the nits-checker)
>
>These comments are for -term-06
>
>   == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed
>      Standard
>(need to add Informational, like all BMWG's drafts and RFCs. MUST fix.)
>
>   == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-soc-overload-design has been published as
>      RFC 6357
>
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
>      draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-10
>
>Also, in section 2.1, one of the bullets says:
>...This is because our goal is to determine the
>maximum throughput of the device or system under test, that is the
>number of simultaneous SIP sessions that the device or system can
>support.
>
>I suggest s/throughput/capacity/ because we already have a
>special definition of "throughput" in BMWG, and capacity
>(or some other term you choose, is a better metric for size here.
>
>
>Last full sentence before section 3.2:
>
>  The EA must make that  count available for viewing ad recording.
>s/ad/and/
>
>Section 3.2.3: typo
>... service.he SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall
>s/.he/. The/
>
>-meth comments to follow,
>Al
>
>
>At 05:12 PM 11/11/2012, Al Morton wrote:
>
>>Re-sending to Dale's new address.
>>
>>At 08:45 AM 11/11/2012, Al Morton wrote:
>>
>>>TO: BMWG,
>>>CC: RAI Dir Reviewer Dale Worley, sipcore wg,
>>>
>>>A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Drafts on SIP Device
>>>Benchmarking:
>>>
>>>   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term/
>>>   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth/
>>>
>>>will be open from 11 Nov 2012 through 10 Dec 2012.
>>>
>>>These drafts are continuing the BMWG Last Call Process. See
>>>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg00846.html
>>>The first WGLC was completed on 5 April 2010 with comments.
>>>The second WGLC was completed on 18 May 2012 with comments.
>>>
>>>Please read and express your opinion on whether or not these
>>>Internet-Drafts should be forwarded to the Area Directors for
>>>publication as Informational RFCs.  Send your comments
>>>to this list or [e-mail]
>>>
>>>Al
>>>bmwg chair
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>bmwg mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>bmwg mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg