Subject: FW: [bmwg] RE: [Sipping] SIP Performance Metrics

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:18:25 -0400

Hi Dan,

Yes.  Daryl, myself, and the two working groups are in complete agreement
that the two drafts will be distinct in scope yet share common Terminology
when possible.  Besides the difference in scope of end-to-end versus single
DUT benchmarking, it is also worth noting that a BMWG work item is a pair of
documents - Terminology and Methodology.  Both SIPPING and BMWG have agreed
to continue to collaborate so that both 'IETF' work items are consistent.

Scott  

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daryl Malas" <[email-masked]>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "sipping" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:33 PM
Subject: [bmwg] RE: [Sipping] SIP Performance Metrics

> Correct...although I think an attempt is being made to uniquely define
> metrics for the purposes of each working group and draft, any like
> terminology/definitions will reference one or the other's draft.
>
> On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 01:18 +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > That's good - thanks for the clarification. Does this mean that the
> > benchmarking document will refer to definitions in the performance
> > metrics draft wherever applicable?
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Daryl Malas [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:11 AM
> > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > > Cc: sipping; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [Sipping] SIP Performance Metrics
> > >
> > > This communication and work is taking place to make sure the
> > > efforts are complimentary (and relative to the specific
> > > working groups) and do not overlap.  The differences were
> > > discussed in Montreal, but to recap...the work in Sipping is
> > > end-to-end and the work in BMWG is single DUT.
> > >
> > > Thanks..--Daryl
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 01:01 +0300, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > > > I am cross-posting the bmwg and sipping wg lists on purpose.
> > > >
> > > > There seem to be quite a lot of commonality between the following
> > > > Internet-Drafts:
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > >
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malas-performance-metrics-03
> > > > .t
> > > > xt
> > > > -
> > > >
> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-poretsky-sip-bench-term-01.t
> > > > xt
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice if the authors of the two drafts would
> > > work together
> > > > to make sure that SIP performance metrics are being defined in one
> > > > place (in the IETF at least) and the same definitions are
> > > being used
> > > > for SIP performance measurement and benchmarking.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
> > > > This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use
> > > > [email-masked] for questions on current sip Use
> > > > [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP
> > >
> > >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP