Re: [Dime] Diameter Load Editor's note on presence of overload report

["Trottin, Jean-Jacques (Nokia - FR)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Steve and all
This is about this Editor’s Note in draft-ietf-dime-load-01:



      Editor's Note: One area that requires thought is how load

      information is used, if at all, in the presence of an overload

      report from the same Diameter node.  It might be that the load

      information from that Diameter node is ignored for the duration of

      the time that the overload report is in effect.  It might also be

      possible that the load information can aid in the diverting of

      non-abated requests targeted for the overloaded Diameter node.



In the current writing “from the “same” Diameter node”, the word “same”” is a bit misleading as it may be understood how the possible available load information of the overloaded node can be used and I do not well see the aid that load information from the overloaded node can bring, This is the load information from the other nodes which is helpful when diverting .



I propose to, remove this editor’s note and replace it with the possible hereafter writing:



“A reacting node which has received an overload report from a reporting node might ignore the load information received from that Diameter node for the duration of the time that the overload report is in effect. It might take into account the load information received from the other nodes to which it might divert requests targeted for the overloaded Diameter node.”



For your feedback


Best regards
JJacques