Subject: Third Bakeoff test results

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:30:13 +0530

Hi,
when could we expect updates on Henning's site for the 3rd bakeoff ?
Were there any new tests conducted which will be posted like those of the
2nd bakeoff ?

Also, one further question - since  SIP+ has been superceded by INFO and
other extensions,
is a message with protocol other than SIP / <xxx> valid anymore ?

Thanx
Regds
Arjun

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 17:53:05 -0500

> Were there any new tests conducted which will be posted like those of the

I'd be glad to host "specimen" of burned cookies that gave SIP bakers
indigestion during the bake-off.

> is a message with protocol other than SIP / <xxx> valid anymore ?

The SIP indicator serves to distinguish the protocol from other
protocols (such as HTTP or RTSP) that might end up on the same port,
usually by accident. I don't anticipate that this should be modified.

-- 
Henning Schulzrinne   http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:35:20 -0500

> Were there any new tests conducted which will be posted like those of the

The bakeoff was quite a success. We decided to raise the bar a bit, and
on the third day, executed the following complex scenario:

UA1 ------> P1 ------> P2 --------> UA2
            |           |
            |           |---------> UA3
            |
            |----------P3---------> UA4

UA1 sends an INVITE to P1. P1 asks for proxy authorization, returning a
407. UA1 resubmits the request, and it is authenticated by P1. P1 forks,
sending the request to P2 via TCP, and P3 via UDP. P2 forks again, to
UA2 and UA3. Only P2 record routes. All three phones ring at UA2,3,4.
UA2 answers with a 200 OK. P2 cancels to UA3, and forwards the 200 OK to
P1 over TCP. P1 cancels to P3, which cancels to UA4. P1 also forwards
the 200 OK to UA1. UA1 sends an ACK to UA2 through P2, since P1 didn't
record route. UA1 and UA2 talk, then UA2 hangs up by sending a BYE
through P2.

All seven entities were provided by seven different providers. We
pre-screened providers to make sure they met the requirements for the
entity they were executing. We ran several rounds of this scenario, and
got it working in nearly every round. In the third round, the setup
itself executed on the first attempt.

People found this test tremendously useful. It popped out some bugs that
they hadn't considered. It also showed a real world scenario, and
furthermore, such a scenario among many different vendors equipment.
There was agreement to do many more of these kind of tests at the next
bakeoff. 

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       200 Executive Drive
Chief Scientist                             Suite 120 
dynamicsoft                                 West Orange, NJ 07052
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (732) 741-4778
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: (732) 741-7244
http://www.dynamicsoft.com