Network Working Group
INTERNET-DRAFT
Expires in: April 2007
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
Vijay Gurbani
Lucent Technologies
Carol Davids
Illinois Institute
of Technology
October 2006
Terminology for Benchmarking
SIP Networking Devices
<draft-poretsky-sip-bench-term-02.txt>
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) statement:
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Status of this Memo
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
ABSTRACT
This document provides a terminology for benchmarking SIP
performance in networking devices. Terms are included for test
components, test setup parameters, and performance benchmark metrics
for black-box benchmarking of SIP networking devices. The
Performance Benchmark Metrics are obtained for the SIP Control Plane
and Media Plane. The terms are intedned for use in a companion
Methodology document for complete performance characterization of a
device in a variety of network conditions making it possible to
compare performance of different devices. It is critical to provide
Test Setup Parameters and a Methodology document for SIP performance
benchmarking because SIP allows a wide range of configuration and
operational conditions that can influence performance benchmark
measurements. It is necessary to have terminology and methodology
standards to ensure that reported benchmarks have consistent
definition and were obtained following the same procedures.
Benchmarks can be applied to compare performance of a variety
of SIP networking devices.
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................4
2. Existing definitions .........................................4
3. Term definitions..............................................5
3.1 Test Components...........................................5
3.1.1 SIP Control Plane....................................5
3.1.2 SIP Media Plane......................................5
3.1.3 Emulated Agents......................................6
3.1.4 Session Server.......................................6
3.1.5 SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall..........................6
3.1.6 Invite-Initiated Control Session.....................7
3.1.7 Non-Invite Initiated Control Session.................8
3.1.8 Registration.........................................8
3.1.9 Associated Media Stream..............................8
3.1.10 Associated Media Session............................9
3.2 Test Setup Parameters.....................................9
3.2.1 SIP Transport Protocol...............................9
3.2.2 Intended Media Session Duration......................10
3.2.3 Measured Media Session Duration......................10
3.2.4 Session Attempt Rate.................................11
3.2.4.1 Media Session Attempt Rate.........................11
3.2.4.2 NIICS Session Attempt Rate.........................12
3.2.5 Media Streams per Session............................12
3.2.6 Media Packet Size....................................13
3.2.7 Media Offered Load, per Media Stream.................13
3.2.8 Media Offered Load, Aggregate........................13
3.2.9 Media Session Hold Time..............................14
3.3 Benchmarks................................................14
3.3.1 Registration Rate....................................14
3.3.2 Session Rate.........................................14
3.3.3 Session Capacity.....................................15
3.3.4 Session Establishment Performance....................15
3.3.5 Session Setup Delay..................................16
3.3.6 Session Teardown Delay...............................16
3.3.7 Standing Sessions....................................17
3.3.8 IM Rate..............................................18
3.3.9 Presence Rate........................................18
4. IANA Considerations...........................................19
5. Security Considerations.......................................19
6. Acknowledgements..............................................19
7. References....................................................20
8. Author's Address..............................................21
9. Full Copyright Statement......................................22
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
1. Introduction
Service Providers are now planning Voice Over IP (VoIP) and Multimedia
network deployments using the IETF developed Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) [Ro02]. VoIP has led to development of new networking devices
including SIP Server, Session Border Controller, and SIP-Aware Stateful
Firewall. The mix of voice and IP functions in this variety of devices
has produced inconsistencies in vendor reported performance metrics and
has caused confusion in the service provider community. SIP allows a
wide range of configuration and operational conditions that can
influence performance benchmark measurements. It is important to be
able to correlate a signalling measurement with the media plane
measurements to determine the system performance.
When defining SIP performance benchmarks it is critical to also provide
definitions for Test Setup Parameters and a corresponding Methodology
document for SIP performance benchmarking. This enables benchmarks to
be understood, fairly compared, and repeatable. This document provides
the benchmarking terms for performance benchmarking the SIP control
and media planes. Terms are included for Test Components, Test Setup
Parameters, and Benchmarks. All benchmarks are black-box measurements
of the SIP Control and Media Planes. It is intended that these terms
be used in a companion Methodology document.
SIP is used to create a growing number of very different applications
and features. The set of benchmarking terms provided in this document
is intended for application to each. SIP is frequently used to
create streams of media. The control plane and the media plane are
treated as orthogonal in this document. In order to characterize the
performance of one or another application or feature it may be
necessary to logically associate several of the benchmarking metrics
provided here. Benchmarks to be obtained and compared for different
types of Devices Under test (DUTs) such as SIP Proxy Server, SBC,
P-CSCF, Proxy Server paired with a Firewall/NAT device, and P-CSCF
paired with a Firewall/NAT device. Media benchmarks can also be made
when testing Systems Under Test (SUTs).
2. Existing definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119.
RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the
intent of standards track documents as clear as possible. While this
document uses these keywords, this document is not a standards track
document. The term Throughput is defined in RFC 2544.
Many SIP terms used in this document are defined in [Ro02].
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
3. Term Definitions
3.1 Test Components
3.1.1 SIP Control Plane
Definition:
The logical plane in which SIP Signaling messages are
exchanged between SIP Agents.
Discussion:
SIP signaling messages are used to establish SIP signaling
sessions in several ways: directly between two User Agents;
between a User Agent and a Proxy Server; or between a
series of Proxy Servers.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
SIP Media Plane
Emulated Agents
3.1.2 SIP Media Plane
Definition:
The logical plane in which media streams, also known as
the "payload" or "bearer channel", established by the
SIP Signaling messages are exchanged.
Discussion:
The Media Plane is analagous to the Data Plane.
Packets for the SIP Control Plane and the SIP Media Plane
traverse different paths, which can produce variation
in performance. For this reason it is necessary to
benchmark performance of the SIP Control Plane and the
SIP Media Plane.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
SIP Control Plane
Emulated Agents
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
3.1.3 Emulated Agent
Definition:
Device in test topology that initates/responds to SIP
signaling as a session endpoint and sources/receives
associated media for established connections.
Discussion:
The Emulated Agent (EA) is a function of the Tester.
The Tester MAY be configured to be multiple EAs.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
SIP Media Plane
SIP Control Plane
3.1.4 Session Server
Definition:
Device in test topology that acts as proxy between Emulated
Agents. This device is either a DUT or component of a SUT.
Discussion:
The Session Server MUST be a RFC 3261 [Ro02] compliant
device. It MAY be a Proxy Server, Session Border Controller
(SBC), or other type of device that is RFC 3261 compliant.
Measurement Units: N/A
Issues: None
See Also:
SIP Control Plane
3.1.5 SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall
Definition:
Device in test topology that provides SIP DoS Protection
for the Emulated Agents and Session Server
Discussion:
The SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall MAY be an internal
component or function of the Session Server. The
SIP-Aware Stateful Firewall MAY be a standalone device
that MUST be pairedwith a Session Server to be benchmarked
as a SUT. SIP-Aware Stateful Firewalls MAY include
Network Address Translation (NAT) functionality.
Additional functionality MAY NOT be supported.
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
3.1.6 Invite-Initiated Control Session (IICS)
Definition:
A SIP signaling exchange that includes an initial SIP INVITE
message exchanged between Emulated Agent and DUT/SUT.
Discussion:
An Invite-Initiated Control Session (IICS) MAY have
associated media. The inclusion of media is test case
dependent. An IICS may be in one of several different
states: Attempting , Established, Disconnecting. These
states are distinguished as follows:
Attempting - the state after the invite is sent by or
received at the Tester and before the ack to that Invite
is received at or sent by the Tester. This definition
includes possible reinvites as well as redirects. It also
includes all Invites that are rejected for lack of
authentication information.
Established - the state after the 200 OK for the initiating
Invite is sent by or received at the Tester. This definition
includes possible reinvites as well as redirects. It also
includes all invites that are rejected for lack of
authentication information.
Disconnecting - the state after a BYE is sent by or received
at the Tester.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
3.1.7 Non-INVITE-initiated Control Session (NIICS)
Definition:
A SIP signaling exchange that does not include an initial SIP
INVITE message exchanged between Emulated Agent and DUT/SUT.
Discussion:
A Non-INVITE-initiated Control Session (N-IICS) does not have
Associated media.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
3.1.8 Registration
Definition:
A NIICS whose initial SIP message is a REGISTER request.
Discussion:
Registrations represent a percent of SIP network traffic.
As such they represent a significant part of the work of
some elements of the DUT/SUT. A Registration attempt
MAY be sussessful or unsuccessful. A suuccessful
registration is determined by receipt of a 200 OK
response. An unsuccessful registration is one that
does not receive a 200 OK response.
Measurement Units:
N/A
Issues:
None
See Also:
3.1.9 Associated Media Stream
Definition:
A media stream that is associated with an IICS.
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
Discussion:
Any media protocol MAY be used. If RTP is used, the
Associated Media Stream of the IICS is identified as
the concatenation of
(1) the IP address and transport port identified by the
originator in its SDP.
(2) the IP address and transport port identified by the
destination in its SDP.
(3) the SSRC in the RTP sent by the originator.
(4) the SSRC in the RTP sent by the destination.
(5) the RTCP ports identified by the originator and
destination.
Measurement Units:
NA
Issues:
None
3.1.10 Associated Media Session
Definition:
The collection of associated media streams created by
an IICS and identified by a SIP Call-ID.
Discussion:
A session, as defined by SDP, can comprise one or more media
streams.
Measurement Units:
NA
Issues:
None
3.2 Test Setup Parameters
3.2.1 SIP Transport Protocol
Definition:
The protocol used for transport of the SIP Control Plane
messages.
Discussion:
Performance benchmarks may vary for the same SIP networking
device depending upon whether TCP, UDP, TLS, SCTP, or another
transport layer protocol is used. For this reason it MAY
be necessary to measure the SIP Performance Benchmarks using
these various transport protocols. Performance Benchmarks
MUST report the SIP Transport Protocol used to obtain the
benchmark results.
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
Measurement Units:
TCP or UDP
Issues:
None
See Also:
3.2.2 Intended Session Duration
Definition:
Configuration on the Emulated Agent for time from an IICS
establishment to BYE. This is the duration of the
Established State.
Discussion:
The Intended Session Duration is configured on the Emulated
Agent. This value is used for all sessions. When
benchmarking Session Capacity the effective value of the
Session Duration is infinite.
Measurement Units:
seconds
Issues:
None
See Also:
Session Attempt Rate
3.2.3 Measured Session Duration
Definition:
Average measurement on the DUT/SUT for time from session
establishment to BYE.
Discussion:
The value of the Measured Session Duration MAY not equal
the Intended Session Duration. This parameter requires
that the session duration be measured for every session
through the test duration.
Measurement Units:
seconds
Issues:
None
See Also:
Intended Session Duration
Session Attempt Rate
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
3.2.4 Session Attempt Rate
Definition:
Configuration on the Emulated Agent for number of
sessions to be established at the DUT per continuous
one-second intervals.
Discussion:
The Session Attempt Rate can cause variation in
performance benchmark measurements. Since this is
the number of sessions configured on the Tester, some
sessions may not be successfully established on the
DUT. Sessions may be IICS or NIICS.
For a fixed value of Session Attempt Rate, more stress
may be incurred on the DUT/SUT when it processes
sessions setups and teardowns concurrently during each
one-second interval.
Measurement Units:
session attempts per second (saps)
Issues:
None
See Also:
Measured Session Duration
Session Attempt Rate
3.2.4.1 Media Session Attempt Rate
Definition:
Configuration on the Emulated Agent for number of
media sessions to be established at the DUT per
continuous one-second intervals.
Discussion:
The Media Session Attempt Rate can cause variation in
performance benchmark measurements. Since this is
the number of sessions configured on the Tester, some
sessions may not be successfully established on the
DUT. Media Sessions MUST be associated to IICSes.
Measurement Units:
session attempts per second (saps)
Issues:
None
See Also:
Measured Media Session Duration
Session Attempt Rate
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
3.2.4.2 NIICS Attempt Rate
Definition:
Configuration on the Emulated Agent for number of
NIICSes to be established at the DUT per continuous
one-second intervals.
Discussion:
The NIICS attempts include registrations, Instant Messages,
and Presence-related messages.
Measurement Units:
session attempts per second (saps)
Issues:
None
See Also:
Measured Session Duration
Session Attempt Rate
3.2.5 Media Streams per Media Session
Definition:
Configuration on the Emulated Agent for a fixed number
of media streams offered for each session.
Discussion:
For a single benchmark test, all sessions use the
same number of Media Streams per Session. Presence
of media streams and the number of media streams per
session can cause variation in performance benchmark
measurements. The RECOMMENDED values for Media
Streams per Session are 0,1,2,3,4, but higher values
MAY be used.
Measurement Units:
media streams per session (msps)
Issues:
None
See Also:
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
3.2.6 Media Packet Size
Definition:
Configuration on the Emulated Agent for a fixed size of
packets used for media streams.
Discussion:
For a single benchmark test, all sessions use the
same size packet for media streams. The size of packets can
cause variation in performance benchmark measurements.
Measurement Units:
bytes
Issues:
None
See Also:
3.2.7 Media Offered Load, per Media Stream
Definition:
The constant amount of media traffic offered by the
Emulated Agent to the DUT/SUT for each media stream.
Discussion:
For a single benchmark test, all sessions use the
same Media Offered Load, per Media Stream.
Measurement Units:
pps
Issues:
None
See Also:
3.2.8 Media Offered Load, Aggregate
Definition:
The total amount of media traffic offered by the
Emulated Agent to the DUT/SUT.
Discussion:
Measurement Units:
pps
Issues:
None
See Also:
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
3.2.9 Media Session Hold Time
Definition:
The amount of time during which media flows from the
Tester to the DUT for a successful IICS.
Discussion:
Measurement Units:
seconds
Issues:
None
See Also:
3.3 Benchmarks
3.3.1 Registration Rate
Definition:
Maximum number of registrations successfully
completed by the DUT/SUT.
Discussion:
This benchmark is obtained with zero failure in which
100% of the registrations attempteded by the Emulated Agent
are successfully completed by the DUT/SUT.
The maximum value is obtained by testing to failure.
Measurement Units:
registrations per second (rps)
Issues:
None
See Also:
3.3.2 Session Rate
Definition:
Maximum number of Control Sessions successfully established
per continuous one-second intervals with the
sessions remaining active.
Discussion:
This benchmark is obtained with zero failure in which
100% of the sessions introduced by the Emulated Agent
successfully establish. The maximum value is obtained
by testing to failure. Sessions may be IICS or NIICS.
Measurement Units:
sessions per second (sps)
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
Issues:
None
See Also:
Invite-Initiated Control Session (IICS)
Non-Invite Initiated COntrol Session (NIICS)
Session Attempt Rate
3.3.3 Session Capacity
Definition:
The maximum number of SIP sessions that the DUT/SUT
can simultaneously have established.
Discussion:
The Session Duration MUST be infinite so that sessions
remain established for the duration of the test to
obtain the Session Capacity benchmark. The Session
Capacity must be reported with the Session Rate used to
reach the maximum. Since Session Rate is a zero-loss
measurement, there must be zero failures to achieve the
Session Capacity. Sessions may be IICS or NIICS.
Measurement Units:
sessions
Issues: None
See Also:
Session Attempt Rate
3.3.4 Session Establishment Performance
Definition:
The percentage of sessions that successfully establish
for the duration of a benchmarking test.
Discussion:
Session Establishment Performance is a benchmark to indicate
session establishment success for the duration of a test.
The duration for measuring this benchmark is to be specified
in the Methodology. The Session Duration may be configured
so that sessions terminate during the test duration.
Established Sessions MAY be reported as the percentage of
Session Attempts that failed or the percentage of Session
Attempts that were successful.
Measurement Units:
Percentage, %
Issues: None
See Also:
Session Rate
Sesion Attempt Rate
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
3.3.5 Session Setup Delay
Definition:
The average time for a session to establish.
Discussion:
Time is from the Emulated Agent to signal the first
INVITE. Session Setup Delay MUST be measured for
every established session to calculate the average.
Session Setup Delay MUST be measured at the
Successful Setup Attempt Rate.
Measurement Units:
msec
Issues:
None
See Also:
Successful Setup Attempt Rate
3.3.6 Session Teardown Delay
Definition:
The average time for a session to teardown.
Discussion:
Time is from the Emulated Agent to signal the BYE.
Session Teardown Delay MUST be measured for every
established session to calculate the average.
Session Setup Delay MUST be measured with the rate
of teardowns configured to the value of the
Successful Setup Attempt Rate.
Measurement Units:
msec
Issues:
None
See Also:
Successful Setup Attempt Rate
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
3.3.7 Standing Sessions
Definition:
Measurement of the number of Active Control Sessions
concurrently established on the DUT/SUT at an instant.
Discussion:
The number of Standing Sessions is influenced by
the Session Duration and the Session Rate (or
Session Attempt Rate). Benchmarks MUST be reported
with the maximum and average Standing Sessions for
the DUT/SUT. In order to determine the maximum and
average Standing Sessions on the DUT/SUT for the
duration of the test it is necessary to make
periodic measurements of the number of Standing
Sessions on the DUT/SUT. The recommended value
for the measurement period is 1 second.
Measurement Units:
sessions
Issues:
None
See Also:
Active Control Sessions
Session Duration
Session Rate
Session Attempt Rate
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
3.3.8 IM Rate
Definition:
Maximum number of IM messages completed successfully
by the DUT/SUT.
Discussion:
For a UAS, the definition of success is
the receipt of an IM request and the subsequent sending
of a final response. For a UAC, the definition of success
is the sending of an IM request and the receipt of
a final response to it. For a proxy, the definition of
success is as follows:
a) the number of IM requests it receives from the upstream
client MUST be equal to the number of IM requests it
sent to the downstream server; and
b) the number of IM responses it receives from the
downstream server MUST be equal to the number of IM
requests sent to the downstream server; and
c) the number of IM responses it sends to the upstream
client MUST be equal to the number of IM requests it
received from the upstream client.
Measurement Units:
IM Messages Per Second
Issues:
None.
See Also:
3.3.9 Presence Rate
Definition:
Maximum number of presence notifications sent out by
the DUT/SUR acting as a Presence Agent [Ro04].
Discussion: The intent of this benchmark is to assess the
throughput of a Presence Agent (PA, see [Ro04]). The
PA will accept subscriptions from watchers, and when the
target of the subscription is registered with the PA (who
is acting as a registrar), a notification is generated to
the watcher. This benchmark will use the presence event
package as documented in [Ro04]. The Presence Rate will
be less than or equal to the Registration Rate.
Measurement Units:
Presence Notifications Per Second
See Also:
Registration Rate.
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
4. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA considerations.
5. Security Considerations
Documents of this type do not directly affect the security of
Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking is not
performed on devices or systems connected to production
networks. Security threats and how to counter these in SIP
and the media layer is discussed in RFC3261, RFC3550, and
RFC3711 and various other drafts. This document attempts to
formalize a set of common terminology for benchmarking SIP
networks.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Keith Drage and Daryl Malas
for their contributions to this document.
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[Ba91] Bradner, S. "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
Interconnection Devices", IETF RFC 1242, July 1991.
[Ba99] Bradner, S. and McQuaid, J., "Benchmarking
Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices",
IETF RFC 2544, March 1999.
[Ga05] Garcia-Martin, M., "Input 3rd-Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP) Release 5 Requirements on the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", IETF RFC 4083, May 2005.
[Li06] Lingle, K., Mule, J., Maeng, J., Walker, D.,
"Management Information Base for the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-sip-mib-10.txt, work in
progress, March 2006.
[Ma98] Mandeville, R., "Benchmarking Terminology for LAN
Switching Devices", IETF RFC 2285, February 1998.
[Ma06] Malas, D. "SIP Performance Metrics",
draft-malas-performance-metrics-01.txt, work in progress,
October 2006.
[Po06] Poretsky, S., Gurbani, V., and Davids, C., "SIP
Performance Benchmarking Methodology",
draft-poretsky-bmwg-sip-meth-00, work in progress,
October 2006.
[Ro02] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M. and E. Schooler,
"SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", IETF RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[Ro04] Rosenberg, J., "A Presence Event Package for the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)," IETF RFC 3856, August
2004.
[Sp06] Sparks, R., et al, "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Torture Test Messages", IETF RFC 4475, October 2006.
7.2 Informative References
None
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 20]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
8. Author's Address
Scott Poretsky
Reef Point Systems
8 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
USA
Phone: + 1 508 439 9008
EMail: sporetsky@reefpoint.com
Vijay Gurbani
2000 Lucent Lane
Lucent Technologies
Room 6G-440
Naperville, IL 60566
USA
Phone: + 1 630 224 0216
Email: vkg@lucent.com
Carol Davids
Illinois Institute of Technology
Rice Campus
201 East Loop Road
Wheaton, IL 60187
USA
Phone: + 1 630 682 6000
Email: davids@iit.edu
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 21]
INTERNET-DRAFT Benchmarking Terminology for October 2006
SIP Networking Devices
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Poretsky, Gurbani, Davids [Page 22]