(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational, as indicated on the title page.
All BMWG RFCs are traditionally Informational,
in part because they do not define protocols and
the traditional conditions for Stds track advancement
did not apply. However, they are specifications and
the RFC 2119 terms are applicable to identify the
level of requirements.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

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
standard ized 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:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Al Morton is Shepherd, Ron Bonica is Responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The shepherd has reviewed the drafts many times, and his comments are
in the BMWG archive. The last review resulted in post-WGLC revisions.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No. Cross-area review has been obtained, however it impossible to get
the attention of everyone who considers themselves a SIP expert.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns, this is still a valuable memo, as mentioned above.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

There are no outstanding IPR disclosures, according to the authors.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Although the comments and review intensity was highly variable,
it now appears that the WG is satisfied. The 3rd WGLC went quietly.
The first WGLC was completed on 5 April 2010 with comments.
The second WGLC was completed on 18 May 2012 with comments.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Nits (version 2.12.13) are warnings requiring no action for this draft.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?

The -term and -meth drafts are proceeding to publication as a pair.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it
unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).

No requests of IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A

This is a publication request for:
draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth -07 2012-01-06 Active
draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term -07 2012-01-06 Active

using the shepherding form dated 24 February 2012, now available from
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html

Al Morton is the Document Shepherd, and prepared this form.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational, as indicated on the title page.
All BMWG RFCs are traditionally Informational,
in part because they do not define protocols and
the traditional conditions for Stds track advancement
did not apply. However, they are specifications and
the RFC 2119 terms are applicable to identify the
level of requirements.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

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
standard ized 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:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Al Morton is Shepherd, Ron Bonica is Responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The shepherd has reviewed the drafts many times, and his comments are
in the BMWG archive. The last review resulted in post-WGLC revisions.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No. Cross-area review has been obtained, however it impossible to get
the attention of everyone who considers themselves a SIP expert.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns, this is still a valuable memo, as mentioned above.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

There are no outstanding IPR disclosures, according to the authors.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Although the comments and review intensity was highly variable,
it now appears that the WG is satisfied. The 3rd WGLC went quietly.
The first WGLC was completed on 5 April 2010 with comments.
The second WGLC was completed on 18 May 2012 with comments.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Nits (version 2.12.13) are warnings requiring no action for this draft.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

The -term and -meth drafts are proceeding to publication as a pair.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

No requests of IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A