Re: [bmwg] RE: [Sipping] Draft: SIP Performance Metrics

[[e-mail]]

On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 08:07:35AM -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
> The authors of this work have been in regular communication from Erich M.
> Nahum of SPEC.  Here is a snip from one of the emails that well summmarizes
> the relationship:

Actually, I'm from IBM, not SPEC.  SPEC is just a consortium of its member
companies/organizations.  Sort of like IETF.

-Erich

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:51 PM
> > To: Vijay K. Gurbani
> > Cc: Malas, Daryl; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: [bmwg] SPEC SIP Benchmarking Effort
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I have been organizing the SPEC SIP benchmarking effort, and would
> > love to get participation from IETF folks.  It seems like the two
> > activities could be very complementary.  
> > 
> > Based on what I've seen, it seems like the IETF BMWG and Daryl Malas' 
> > draft posted on SIPPING a few days ago are more oriented towards defining 
> > the proper methods and metrics to measure (e.g., call success rate,
> defects 
> > per million, etc.).  
> > 
> > In contrast, SPEC wants to develop and distribute common code for 
> > benchmarking, as is done with SPECWeb and SPECJAppServer.  That code can 
> > and should use the standardized peformance definitions agreed to by 
> > SIPPING and/or BMWG.  
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 6:00 AM
> To: Burger, Eric; Malas, Daryl
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [bmwg] RE: [Sipping] Draft: SIP Performance Metrics
> 
> 
> Eric,
> 
> >From the bmwg charter: 
> 
> > The major goal of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group is to
> make
> a series of recommendations concerning the measurement of the
> performance characteristics of various internetworking technologies;
> 
> To the extend that we consider SIP an internetworking technology, I
> believe that the scope of the 'SIP Performance Metrics' draft is within
> the scope of what bmwg is doing for a while, quite successfully, some
> say. 
> 
> On a more 'philosophical plan', there is nothing that says that the IETF
> work must strictly deal with defining the bits in the Internet Protocols
> - see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-taobis-08.txt.
> And in any case, measuring how a protocol or a device implementing a
> protocol behaves can be considered also 'DIRECTLY related to protocol
> development'.
> 
> Dan
> 
> PS - This does not mean that I do not have my own questions about the
> I-D :-)
> 
> PPS - If we end by deciding that we do this work in the IETF we should
> certainly coordinate with other organizations developing standards,
> performance measurement and test methodologies in this space. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Burger, Eric [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 11:18 PM
> > To: Malas, Daryl
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: [bmwg] RE: [Sipping] Draft: SIP Performance Metrics
> > 
> > More to the point, is this work appropriate for the IETF at 
> > all?  I would offer that if we needed additions to SIP to 
> > instrument it for monitoring, then sure.  However, I think 
> > this would much better be done in another venue such as the 
> > SIP Forum or IMS Forum or even SPEC.  If it turns out that 
> > there need to be some SIP changes, then we could bring that 
> > to the IETF.
> > 
> > We have way too much on our plate as it is.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Disclaimer: I'm on the boards of both the SIP Forum and IMS Forum.
> > However, this isn't make-work for those groups.  Rather, this 
> > is a plea to NOT make more work in the IETF that is not 
> > DIRECTLY related to protocol development.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:44 PM
> > To: Vijay K. Gurbani
> > Cc: Malas, Daryl; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Sipping] Draft: SIP Performance Metrics
> > 
> > A working group has just been formed (this week) in the SPEC 
> > consortium.
> > 
> > Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> > > Daryl: There is work starting in the BMWG along SIP performance 
> > > metrics, being worked by Scott Poretsky and me.  At the 
> > very least, we 
> > > should co-ordinate your draft with the thoughts there, and then can 
> > > figure out with the help of chairs and ADs as to where the 
> > work should 
> > > proceed.
> > > 
> > > I have also heard about some performance metrics work in TISPAN and 
> > > SPEC, but I do not have any more details about these.
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
> > This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP 
> > Use [e-mail] for questions on current 
> > sip Use [e-mail] for new developments of core SIP
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > bmwg mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
> Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
> Use [e-mail] for new developments of core SIP

-- 
Erich M. Nahum                  IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Research Staff Member           P.O. Box 704
[e-mail]            Yorktown Heights NY 10598

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg