Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion

[Maria Cruz Bartolome <[e-mail]>]

Fine

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
Sent: miércoles, 26 de febrero de 2014 8:43
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion

Hi

Remove "from now on" is acceptable for me, but  I have a preference for the reverse wording Lionel proposes, which is shorter and brings the clarification I was looking for,:

For example if an OC-Reduction-Percentage value of

 10 has been received, the reacting node which

 would normally send 100 packets MUST only send 90

 packets to the reporting node.


Best regards

JJacques


De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Steve Donovan
Envoyé : lundi 24 février 2014 17:00
À : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion

I'm with Lionel.  I don't understand why the proposed wording is confusing.  Reacting nodes always only apply the reduction percentage for the period of time that the specific overload report is active.  That period either ends when a new overload report is received or when the overload report expires.

That said, I'm happy with just removing the words "from no on" as proposed by Lionel below.

Steve

On 2/24/14 7:26 AM, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:

I don't see the issue, as explained in my mail but OK to remove it.



If "for now" is removed, the resulting text would be:



  For example if the reacting node has been sending

  100 packets per second to the reporting node, then

  a reception of OC-Reduction-Percentage value of 10

  would mean that from now on the reacting node MUST

  only send 90 packets per second.



Maybe it would be even easier to reverse the sentence as follow:



 For example if an OC-Reduction-Percentage value of

 10 has been received, the reacting node which

 would normally send 100 packets MUST only send 90

 packets to the reporting node.





But I'm fine if the initial proposed revised text is kept.



Lionel



De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Maria Cruz Bartolome

Envoyé : lundi 24 février 2014 14:13

À : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Objet : Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion



Hello,



I agree with Ulrich's proposal

Cheers

/MCruz



From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)

Sent: lunes, 24 de febrero de 2014 10:46

To: ext TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion



I share JJacques concern. Replacing "from now on" with "for the period that the overload report is active"

is misleading. May be its better to simply remove "from now on".



Ulrich











From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)

Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 7:11 PM

To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion



Hi MCruz, Steve



I also agree on the "would send " instead of the "would have sent"  for sure.  But I have  a small concern/ clarification  about the Steve comment on   "for the period that the overload report is active" and the example to which it refers.



During the time the OLR is active, which may be rather long,  the traffic the reacting node would send may be 100 packet  when it has just received the OLR. A bit later, the traffic it would send could be 120 (or 80), and from the OLR definition,   it would send 120x0,9 (or 80* 0,9) packets, on  which I agree. This is in line  with the every 10th packet dropping  on which I also agree.



As the text   would  be written with the Steve modification , we may understand it is  80 Packet during all the time  the OLR is active. Not yet think to an alternative text, but first to see if you agree with my remark.



JJacques





De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Envoyé : vendredi 21 février 2014 18:33

À : Steve Donovan; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Objet : Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion



+1 (including Steve comment)



De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Steve Donovan

Envoyé : vendredi 21 février 2014 16:37

À : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Objet : Re: [Dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history - conclusion



Maria Cruz,



I support your suggested changes.  I have one further suggested change below.



Steve

On 2/21/14 2:40 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote:

#52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history



Following agreement is reached:



 Now (chapter 4.7):

    The OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP (AVP code TBD8) is type of Unsigned32

    and describes the percentage of the traffic that the sender is

    requested to reduce, compared to what it otherwise would have sent.



 Proposal:

   The OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP (AVP code TBD8) is type of Unsigned32

   and describes the percentage of the traffic that the sender is

   requested to reduce, compared to what it otherwise would send.                  <----





 Now (chapter 5.5.2):

      Indicates that the reporting node urges the reacting node to

      reduce its traffic by a given percentage.  For example if the

      reacting node has been sending 100 packets per second to the

      reporting node, then a reception of OC-Reduction-Percentage value

      of 10 would mean that from now on the reacting node MUST only send

      90 packets per second.  How the reacting node achieves the "true

      reduction" transactions leading to the sent request messages is up

      to the implementation.  The reacting node MAY simply drop every

      10th packet from its output queue and let the generic application

      logic try to recover from it.0 < value < 100



  Proposal:

 Indicates that the reporting node urges the reacting node to reduce

 its traffic by a given percentage. For example if the

 reacting node would send 100 packets to the                          <---

 reporting node, then a reception of OC-Reduction-Percentage value of

 10 would mean that from now on the reacting node MUST only send

 90 packets instead of 100. How the reacting node achieves the "true       <---

 reduction" transactions leading to the sent request messages is up to

 the implementation. The reacting node MAY simply drop every 10th

 packet from its output queue and let the generic application logic try

 to recover from it.

SRD> Replace "from now on" in the above with "for the period that the overload report is active"















_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime





_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.



_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime