Re: [Dime] Review of

[Janet P Gunn <[e-mail]>]

You might also want to take a look at 


draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-13 

 and


draft-ietf-soc-overload-rate-control-04

While SIP is different from DIME, the SIP overload work was, in some 
senses, the "inspiration" for the DIME overload work, and some of the same 
issues were addressed.

In particular, there was the same concern about "loss based" vs "rate 
based" throttling, resulting in two separate drafts.  Both use the same 
(in band)  communications protocol, and the same parameters, but use 
different parameter values , and different default algorithms.

I agree that it is, in general, better  for the server to tell the client 
"do this", rather than "this is my status, you figure out what to do". But 
DIME may not match the "in general" situation.

Janet



[e-mail] wrote on 07/25/2013 08:50:06 AM:

> From: Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>
> To: Eric McMurry <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Date: 07/25/2013 08:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of
> Sent by: [e-mail]
> 
> 
> > yes, Diameter clients are different.  They tend to be 
> sophisticated servers doing a number of functions with Diameter 
> being used for some of their control signaling.  Their other 
> functions usually require the use of other protocols and they may 
> have to consider information in making overload control decisions 
> that servers do not have.  The requirements draft may be helpful for
> describing the problem domain for this (http://tools.ietf.org/html/
> draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-09)
> 
>   I scanned it.  I'll take a deeper look.
>