This is a publication request for:
draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-term -11 2014-07-02 Active
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:
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 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.
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.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Al
Morton is Shepherd, Joel Jaeggli 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 shepherd has reviewed the drafts many times, and his comments are
in the BMWG archive.
(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
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 not 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
(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 first WGLC was completed on 5
April 2010 with comments. The second WGLC was completed on 18 May 2012
with comments. The third WGLC was completed on 10 Dec 2012 with
comments, and the 1st Pub Request. A IETF Last Call followed, and
completed on 30 Jan 2013 with comments. A fourth WGLC was completed 11
June 2014 with comments from expert review. The current versions (11)
address Dale Worley's RAI area early review and Robert Spark's
reviews. The fifth WGLC completed quietly on July 14th, 2014.
(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.)
(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 are warnings requiring no action for these drafts.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(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 toward publication as a
(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.
(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.
(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
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.
(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.