Re: [Dime] comments on overload control requirements

[Eric McMurry <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lionel,

Thanks for the clarifications.  Can you and/or Jouni comment on the timeframe for the WGLC?

Thanks!

Eric


On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:02 , [e-mail] wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>  
> Thank you for this round up!
>  
> About the discussion on the requirement 2, I think that the proposal for a new requirement reflects the common agreement reached just before  the last IETF minutes and the final wording agreed during the Dime session for this new requirement is fine.
>  
> About the requirement 35, I'm fine with the "SHOULD" as it is. And the discussion has shown that the "SHOULD" here is understood as a strong recommendation given to the solution designer and this requirement will be used as one of the key criteria when evaluating the proposed technical solutions.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Lionel
>  
> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Eric McMurry
> Envoyé : mardi 16 avril 2013 05:29
> À : [e-mail]
> Objet : [Dime] comments on overload control requirements
>  
> Discussions during the recent 3GPP CT4 meeting had some relevance to the last couple of discussions on the diameter overload requirements.  I am repeating the outcome of those discussions here to solicit dime feedback.  I think these are the last discussions left on this draft.  If folks think the proposals here make sense, we'll do a spin with those changes and it should be ready for its second WGLC.
>  
> The first one concerns requirement 2.  It has been proposed here (by Ben) that:
>  
> Diameter clients must be able to use the received load and overload information to support graceful behavior during an overload condition. Graceful behavior under overload conditions is best described by REQ 3
>  
> be added on the end of that requirement for clarification .  I think there was general consensus around that point and the feedback from CT4 was in agreement as well.  Any further comment?
>  
>  
> On req 35, there has been much discussion here, and the last round of that was along the lines of changing it to a MUST with some qualification to account for the implications of making it a must.  There had been some counter discussion that a qualified MUST was not much different from the SHOULD that is currently in the draft.  While that point is debatable, I tend to agree that in this case they are close enough that it is unlikely to affect the outcome of the process.  That was also the feedback from CT4.  Some of the people in that discussion were also part of the discussion here on the dime list and in Orlando.  So, how does leaving that requirement alone (with the SHOULD) work for folks?
>  
> I'd like to do this spin of the requirements draft this week, assuming the changes (and not changes) make sense to everyone.  The chairs may also want to comment on the timing and impending WGLC.
>  
> Thanks!
>  
> Eric
>  
>  
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.