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

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

Just a one-word change.

On 19/12/2012 1:30 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 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         might specify relative priorities of
               ^^^^^^^^
> messages or selection of a specific overload control algorithm.
>