Re: [Dime] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02.txt

> I think the requirement is trying to say the following:
> 
> "Basic support for overload controls MUST be independent of what
> applications a given Diameter node supports. Individual applications MAY
> provide more refined support for overload controls."
> 

I'm not reading a requirement for basic vs. refined support from the current
REQ 2 text.  I understand that REQ 2 is trying to establish the bounds of
acceptable impacts on existing Diameter applications. IMHO it should read
something like "the addition of the Diameter overload control mechanism to
an existing Diameter application MUST NOT require the allocation of a new
application id". Do we need to constrain the solution any further?

I don't understand the motivation for requiring that it "MUST NOT require
specification changes for existing Diameter applications". If 3GPP decides
that Diameter overload control must be supported on an existing reference
point, I would expect the 3GPP TS for that release to be updated to state
just that. This is a "specification change" and I don't see how else a
vendor would know that they had to update their implementation. What am I
missing here?

/Mark

> On 19/12/2012 3:47 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > Thanks for the update. Now that the new revision is out I would
> > encourage the WG to sort out the language in REQ 2 asap. As long as it
> > is in flux the document cannot proceed to WGLC.
> >
> > - jouni
> >
> ...
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime