Re: [Dime] Ben's comments on 4.3, third paragraph from end

  I have removed the last sentence in the paragraph in question.  The 
before and after for the paragraph is as follows:

Before:

    Reporting nodes can change the overload abatement algorithm indicated
    in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP if the reporting node is not currently
    in an overload condition and sending overload reports.  The reporting
    node is not allowed to change the overload abatement algorithm while
    the reporting node is in an overload condition.

After:

    Reporting nodes can change the overload abatement algorithm indicated
    in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP if the reporting node is not currently
    in an overload condition and sending overload reports.

Ulrich,

I'm not sure I understand your point about the assignment of commonly 
supported algorithms.  Are you ok with this change?

Regards,

Steve
On 1/16/15 4:30 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Ben
>
> The Note at the beginning of 5.1 is about change of announced capabilities in reacting nodes, while the text in 4.2 (and 5.2.1.4) is about change of selected algorithm by reporting nodes.
> I don't think the text in 4.2 (and 5.2.1.4) is totally wrong. Of course, if the reacting node changes the set of announced capabilities, the reporting node may change (or even need to  change) the selected algorithm. What is not allowed to be changed by the reporting node during an overload condition is the deterministic function that assignes to every set of commonly supported algorithms a distinct selected algorithm.
>
>
> Ulrich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Ben Campbell
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:19 PM
> To: Steve Donovan
> Cc: dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] Ben's comments on 4.3, third paragraph from end
>
> Sorry, that was 4.2.
>
>> On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Ulrich, I don't see the issue.
>>
>>
>> On 1/15/15 3:58 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>>> Ben wrote:
>>> -- 4.3, third paragraph from end:
>>>   
>>> This still assumes that reporting nodes cannot change algorithms during overload. I thought we agreed to remove that. (The normative text is also still there--see later comment.)
>>>   
>>> <Ulrich> I don't understand. In my copy of -06 the third paragraph from end in 4.3 reads:
>>>     Two types of overload abatement treatment are defined, diversion and
>>>     throttling.  Reacting nodes are responsible for determining which
>>>     treatment is appropriate for individual requests.
>>> How does this text assume that reporting nodes cannot change algorithms during overload?
>>>   
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DiME mailing list
>>>
>>> DiME@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>