Re: [Dime] Ben's comments on 5.2.2: 5th paragraph

On 1/15/15 3:59 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> -- 5.2.2: 5th paragraph:
> This doesn't seem quite right, since it leaves the option of no 
> abatement at all. Second, it doesn't seem to allow delegation of 
> abatement downstream. When might one choose to ignore those SHOULDs? 
> Is this here to allow delegation? If so, the use of SHOULD makes local 
> throttling preferred over delegation.
> <Ulrich> My understanding is: If delegation of abatement is done by a 
> node, then that node is no longer a reacting node.
> The first SHOULD is ignored by reacting nodes that do not support 
> diversion and hence always perform throttling. For the second SHOULD 
> you MAY be right. We SHOULD replace it with MUST.
> In addition the world “otherwise” must not be read as “ if diversion 
> abatement treatment is not possible” but as “ if diversion abatement 
> treatment is not possible and if the first SHOULD is ignored”.
SRD>  I mostly agree with Ulrich.  I propose the second sentence be 
changed to:

The reacting node MUST apply throttling abatement treatment to requests
identified for abatement treatment  when diversion treatment
is not possible or was not applied.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime