[bmwg] Document Action: 'Methodology for Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Devices: Basic session setup and registration' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-12.txt)
The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Wed, 04 February 2015 14:23 UTC
Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A9E31A899C; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:23:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p5QWaLZPbYYy; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:22:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580981A89AE; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:22:51 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.10.1.p2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150204142251.13495.7686.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 06:22:51 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/cltsP4645WakeJEat-5NdOkyJI8>
Cc: bmwg chair <bmwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, bmwg mailing list <bmwg@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [bmwg] Document Action: 'Methodology for Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Devices: Basic session setup and registration' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-12.txt)
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:23:07 -0000
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Methodology for Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Devices: Basic session setup and registration' (draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-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-meth/ 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 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.