[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RAI] SIPit 24 summary
I really don't think SIPit is the relevant place to see "what's implemented"
in commercial products.
I don't even think the numbers are good indicators. It's the wrong place to
look for this type of information.
SIPit will provide valuable information about how implentable a protocol is,
but it won't tell you what makes it into commercial products. Especially
not for something like 302 support.
The sad thing, is I don't believe there is any formal place to look for
such information. In the service provider market you can look at SBC vendors
for stats perhaps. In enteprise market, you probably need to look at a
not-so-big list of software vendors who account for the majority of
the market share.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rai-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:42
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Robert Sparks
> Cc: rai at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [RAI] SIPit 24 summary
>
> fair statement
>
> at the same time, I'm looking at what's missing as an
> indicator (from the sample), what's nearly 100% implemented,
> and with what I asked Robert to look for, what some would
> have considered obvious to implement - and it wasn't
> universally implemented (i.e., lack of handling of 300s by
> 25% of this SIPit, which was surprising to a few of us at least).
>
> At 05:09 AM 5/27/2009, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> >It should also be remembered that the implementations
> represented at a
> >SIPit session are probably not a statistically valid sample from the
> >complete SIP implementation population.
> >
> >While the results of the survey are extremely useful, they
> are bounded.
> >
> >regards
> >
> >Keith
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: rai-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces at ietf.org]
> On Behalf
> > > Of Robert Sparks
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 9:00 PM
> > > To: James M. Polk
> > > Cc: rai at ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [RAI] SIPit 24 summary
> > >
> > > No problem with the question - I've tried to describe
> this process
> > > in previous reports.
> > >
> > > I used an automated survey tool for awhile, and listed
> lots of RFCs/
> > > drafts to help find when something started to emerge into
> > > implementation space.
> > > The problem that I ran into was that the lists got long
> enough that
> > > people would quit responding (or at a minimum complain mightily).
> > > I also discovered that I either had to leave an "I don't know"
> > > answer or allow leaving the question blank (which would get the
> > > majority) or folks who couldn't get the answer quickly would make
> > > something up so they could finish the survey.
> > > Further, there was a measurable problem with people assuming they
> > > knew what a draft was from its name (figuring out who implements
> > > draft-ietf- sip-outbound from those who could just configure
> > > outbound proxies sometimes takes pointed questions).
> > >
> > > So for the last few events, I've gone back to a manual
> survey based
> > > on a short list of questions tuned by what people are
> asking about
> > > and where the edges were at recent events.
> > > I _should_ have asked about History-Info this time, but
> didn't (an
> > > unintentional omission).
> > >
> > > For future events, if there's a particular draft people are
> > > interested in asking about, doing so on-list about the time
> > > registration for the event closes would be very helpful.
> > >
> > > RjS
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 26, 2009, at 2:45 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
> > >
> > > > Which begs the question, Robert - (and I'm not evaluating
> > > you - just
> > > > wanting to know):
> > > >
> > > > Do you (somehow) list all the SIP (and related) RFCs on some
> > > > questionnaire that participants fill out stating which
> they have
> > > > implemented part or all of?
> > > >
> > > > I understand the information you have gotten us, which is
> > > great, and
> > > > am curious about the non-mainstream RFCs we have that
> may be not
> > > > being reported because they aren't asked about.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I can understand if this fact finding would make it too
> > > > cumbersome or somehow untrustworthy in the data reported.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > At 11:53 AM 5/26/2009, Francois Audet wrote:
> > > >> We do know that there is a significant number of commercial
> > > >> implementations of History-Info however.
> > > >>
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: rai-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rai-bounces at ietf.org] On
> > > >> > Behalf Of Robert Sparks
> > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 08:10
> > > >> > To: Dean Willis
> > > >> > Cc: rai at ietf.org
> > > >> > Subject: Re: [RAI] SIPit 24 summary
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On May 24, 2009, at 4:12 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On May 21, 2009, at 9:49 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> SIPit 24 was hosted by JPNIC and NICT the week of May
> > > >> > 18-22, 2009 in
> > > >> > >> Akihabara, Tokyo, Japan.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thank you for the report. Did we get a sense of support for
> > > >> > History-
> > > >> > > Info?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I didn't see any History-Info at the event at all. (But I
> > > >> > didn't ask team-by-team).
> > > >> > Note that we had fewer proxies than usual, and some of the
> > > >> > known-to- have-HI implementations were not present.
> > > >> > Not as precise an answer as I would like, but its
> safe to say
> > > >> > that implementation of History-Info is not pervasive at
> > > this point.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > RjS
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > Dean
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > RAI mailing list
> > > >> > RAI at ietf.org
> > > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
> > > >> >
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> RAI mailing list
> > > >> RAI at ietf.org
> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > RAI mailing list
> > > RAI at ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> RAI mailing list
> RAI at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai
>