Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-08
review-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-08-genart-lc-garcia-2013-02-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-01-30
Requested 2013-01-17
Authors Carol Davids , Vijay K. Gurbani , Scott Poretsky
I-D last updated 2013-02-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Miguel Angel García (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Tom Taylor (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Miguel Angel García
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 12)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2013-02-04
review-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-08-genart-lc-garcia-2013-02-04-00
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-meth-08
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <Miguel.A.Garcia at ericsson.com>
Review Date: 2013-04-02
IETF LC End Date: 2013-01-30



Summary: The document is on track for publication as an Informational 


RFC, but has some issues that should be addressed before publication.




Major issues: none

Minor issues:



- Please expand acronyms at first usage. In particular, I didn't find a 


description of what "IM" is. Are you referring to Instant Messaging?






- Continuing with the previous one, now on Section 6.13. If you refer to 


Instant Messaging, then it is not clear to to me if you are benchmarking 


the one-shot Instant Message produced by the SIP MESSAGE method or if you 


are benchmarking the session-based Instant Messaging created with SIP and 


instantiated with MSRP. Please clarify what you are benchmarking and 


please add a reference to an RFC that defines the IM that you are 


benchmarking.






Nits/editorial comments:



- General: to avoid confusion, the text should add reference to other 


protocols when they are mentioned in the text. This includes: RTP, SRTP, 


perhaps event TCP and UDP, although these two should be clear for everyone.




- Section 4.1 The text says:

   Test cases may be performed with any transport protocol supported by
   SIP.  This includes, but is not limited to, SIP TCP, SIP UDP, and
   TLS.



  My comment: SIP TCP and SIP UDP are not transport protocols. TCP and 


UDP are transport protocols.





- Section 4.4. The text says:

   The test cases specified in this document provide SIP performance
   independent of the protocol used for the media stream.  Any media
   protocol supported by SIP may be used.  This includes, but is not
   limited to, RTP, RTSP, and SRTP...




  My comment: As far as I know, RTSP, specified in RFC 2326. is NOT a 


media protocol, and SIP is not intended to establish RTSP sessions.






/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain