Subject: [PMOL] Protocol Action: 'Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics' to Proposed Standard
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
To: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <[email-masked]>, pmol mailing list <[email-masked]>, pmol chair <[email-masked]>, RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
List-Id: Performance Metrics at Other Layers <pmol.ietf.org>

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics '
   <draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-07.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Performance Metrics for Other Layers Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Dan Romascanu and Ron Bonica.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-07.txt

Technical Summary

    SIP has become a widely-used standard among many service providers,
    vendors, and end users.  Although there are many different standards
    for measuring the performance of signaling protocols, none of them
    specifically address SIP.

    The scope of this document is limited to the definitions of a
    standard set of metrics for measuring and reporting SIP performance
    from an end-to-end perspective.  The metrics introduce a common
    foundation for understanding and quantifying performance expectations
    between service providers, vendors, and the users of services based
    on SIP.  The intended audience for this document can be found among
    network operators, who often collect information on the
    responsiveness of the network to customer requests for services.

Working Group Summary

   Working Group Consensus was smoothly achieved.

Document Quality

   There are several implementations of earlier versions of the I-D,
   based on contacts with the authors.  

   The document was reviewed by the SIPPING WG. 

   The Contributors and Acknowledgements sections list many of the    
   reviewers who deserve mention: Carol Davids, Marian Delkinov, Adam 
   Uzelac, Jean-Francois Mule, Rich Terpstra, John Hearty and Dean 
   Bayless.

Personnel

   Vijay Gurbany is the document shepherd. Dan Romanscanu is the 
   shepherding AD.

From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [PMOL] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-07.txt

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Performance Metrics for Other Layers Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Basic Telephony SIP End-to-End Performance Metrics
	Author(s)       : D. Malas, A. Morton
	Filename        : draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-07.txt
	Pages           : 28
	Date            : 2010-09-20

This document defines a set of metrics and their usage to evaluate
the performance of end-to-end Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
telephony services in both production and testing environments.  The
purpose of this document is to combine a standard set of common
metrics, allowing interoperable performance measurements, easing the
comparison of industry implementations.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-07.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-pmol-sip-perf-metrics-07.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org";
	access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <[email-masked]>

--NextPart--

From: Daryl Malas <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:12:54 -0600
Accept-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Subject: [PMOL]  Additional Comments - sip-perf-metrics-06

--_000_C8B7E476EF75dmalascablelabscom_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All,

I received some additional questions and comments from Hadriel Kaplan, and =
after some short exchanges here are the results of the discussion.  We have=
 come to an agreement with the proposed changes.  Please let us know if the=
re are any concerns with these changes.

>> Section 4.9.2. is titled "Failed session completion", but the example is=
 a
>> failed session attempt or setup, I think.
[DM] After looking over this, I agree with your point.  This sub-section
better fits with "Inaffective Session Attempt."

>> Session Disconnect Delay will get skewed disproportionally if the failed
>> disconnects (BYEs that never get a response) are included in it, since e=
ach
>> time that happens it'll be a 32-second time compared to milliseconds for=
 good
>> cases.  Isn't it better to only measure successful cases for time delay,=
 and
>> count the failed ones in a counter instead (I don't see a counter for th=
e
>> failed ones).
[DM] I think this metric is similar to SRD and should included the followin=
g
statement:
"SDD is measured for both successful and failed session disconnects;
however, SDD for session disconnects ending in a failure MUST NOT be
combined in the same result with successful disconnects.  The duration
associated with success and failure results will likely vary substantially,
and the desired output time associated with each will be significantly
different in many cases."

>> Why is section 4.9 Session Completion Ratio "only used when at least one
>> proxy is involved in the dialog"??
> [DM] After reading through this metric, I am not sure of the value
> associated with this statement.  I think it can simply be removed.

Regards,

Daryl

--_000_C8B7E476EF75dmalascablelabscom_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>[PMOL] Additional Comments - sip-perf-metrics-06</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:=
11pt'>All,<BR>
<BR>
I received some additional questions and comments from Hadriel Kaplan, and =
after some short exchanges here are the results of the discussion. &nbsp;We=
 have come to an agreement with the proposed changes. &nbsp;Please let us k=
now if there are any concerns with these changes.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE=3D"2"><FONT FACE=3D"Consolas, Courier New, Courier=
"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:10pt'>&gt;&gt; Section 4.9.2. is titled &quot;Fa=
iled session completion&quot;, but the example is a<BR>
&gt;&gt; failed session attempt or setup, I think.<BR>
[DM] After looking over this, I agree with your point. &nbsp;This sub-secti=
on<BR>
better fits with &quot;Inaffective Session Attempt.&quot; <BR>
<BR>
&gt;&gt; Session Disconnect Delay will get skewed disproportionally if the =
failed<BR>
&gt;&gt; disconnects (BYEs that never get a response) are included in it, s=
ince each<BR>
&gt;&gt; time that happens it'll be a 32-second time compared to millisecon=
ds for good<BR>
&gt;&gt; cases. &nbsp;Isn't it better to only measure successful cases for =
time delay, and<BR>
&gt;&gt; count the failed ones in a counter instead (I don't see a counter =
for the<BR>
&gt;&gt; failed ones).<BR>
[DM] I think this metric is similar to SRD and should included the followin=
g<BR>
statement:<BR>
&quot;SDD is measured for both successful and failed session disconnects;<B=
R>
however, SDD for session disconnects ending in a failure MUST NOT be<BR>
combined in the same result with successful disconnects. &nbsp;The duration=
<BR>
associated with success and failure results will likely vary substantially,=
<BR>
and the desired output time associated with each will be significantly<BR>
different in many cases.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
&gt;&gt; Why is section 4.9 Session Completion Ratio &quot;only used when a=
t least one<BR>
&gt;&gt; proxy is involved in the dialog&quot;??<BR>
&gt; [DM] After reading through this metric, I am not sure of the value<BR>
&gt; associated with this statement. &nbsp;I think it can simply be removed=
.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPA=
N STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>Regards,<BR>
<BR>
Daryl</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--_000_C8B7E476EF75dmalascablelabscom_--