Skip to main content

Terminology for Benchmarking Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Devices: Basic Session Setup and Registration
draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term-12

Yes

(Joel Jaeggli)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Alia Atlas)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -11) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-29 for -11) Unknown
= Section 2.1 =
"A DUT MAY also include a B2BUA, SBC functionality."

This seems like a strange use of normative language (especially because the "must" earlier in the same bullet is not normative). I think the intended meaning here was actually "may."

= Section 3.1.4 =
"Any media protocol MAY be used."

Same comment as above -- what other choice is there if any media protocol is acceptable? I think this should be "may."

= Section 3.3.2 =
"Following the default value of T1 (500ms) specified in
      the table and a constant multiplier of 64 gives a value of 32
      seconds for this timer (i.e., 500ms * 64 = 32s)."
    
Is this just meant to be an example? Not sure what its purpose is. And it seems really long.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-20 for -11) Unknown
I trust the shepherding AD and his review of this document.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-11-03 for -11) Unknown
Thanks for adding text to address my comment:

The security considerations look fine, but in reading the draft, it takes up until that section to learn that the tests are not performed on a production network and the follow on draft says they are intended for a lab environment.  I think it would be useful to add this assumption into section 2.1 of this draft - that the benchmarks are intended for lab environments or not intended to be used on production networks as a DoS attack is possible using these methods.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -11) Unknown

                            
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-29 for -11) Unknown
I agree with Alissa's comment on media.  Suggest:
OLD: "Any media protocol MAY be used."
NEW: "The format of the media is determined by the SDP attributes for the 'm' line in question."

The phrase "media control protocol" is used in Section 3.1.3.  I assume this is meant to mean RTCP?  If so, it would be useful to note this.