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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

I think that's on the right track. We've been too focused on specification impact, when the root of the requirement is really a combination of application-independent default behavior, along with extensibility to allow application-specific behavior.

To put some finer points on it, how's this? I tried to take the spirit of your proposed text, and added some non-normative elaboration:


The mechanism MUST allow Diameter nodes to support default overload control regardless of which Diameter applications they support. It MUST provide sufficient extensibility to allow individual applications to provide more refined overload control.

The basic mechanism is intended to be application-independent, that is, a Diameter node can use it across any existing and future Diameter applications and expect reasonable results. Certain Diameter applications might, however, benefit from application-specific behavior over and above the mechanism's defaults. For example, an application specification might specify relative priorities of messages or selection of a specific overload control algorithm.



On Dec 19, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Tom Taylor <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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."
> 
> 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
>> 
> ...