Subject: Re: [bmwg] SIP Benchmarking methodology and terminology - version 4 updates

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 09:33:42 -0400

These comments will be considered under the current WGLC.
Al
bmwg chair

At 05:28 AM 3/27/2012, Aamer Akhter (aakhter) wrote:
>Please find my comments for draft-ietf-bmwg-sip-bench-*-04 below:
>
>General comment:
>
>1. Can we please add a statement with regards to the relationship
>between this work and rfc6076? (something more deeper than BMWG is in
>the lab).
>
>2. Have anybody checked to see if the metrics out of rfc6076 and this
>work are comparable?
>
>3. "However, benchmarking SIP
>       presence is not a part of this work item.". Is there a reason for
>this. Presence would be one of the more interesting cases to understand.
>
>
>4. "Only session establishment is considered for the performance
>       benchmarks.  Session disconnect is not considered in the scope of
>       this work item." I would think that given connectivity churn
>(links going up and down, power outages, etc), both establishment as
>well as disconnect are interest items. Consider the cleanup work needed
>after a disconnect... some of this might be a high workload than simply
>maintaining a connection.
>
>5. term-04, figure 12 seems misformatted, or it needs a better
>explanation of how to read it...
>
>6. For the case of video conferencing the SDP can get quite large. I am
>wondering if this (SDP size) is an interesting axis to explore.
>
>