Re: [Dime] [dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history

Fine by me.. though you then need to apply the same change 
to the rest of this paragraph, not only the first one.

Also, please update this additional concern into the
issue tracker issue #52.

- Jouni

On Feb 12, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Same comment also applies to following paragraph in 5.5.2
> 
> Now:
>   0 < value < 100
> 
>      Indicates that the reporting node urges the reacting node to
>      reduce its traffic by a given percentage.  For example if the
>      reacting node has been sending 100 packets per second to the
>      reporting node, then a reception of OC-Reduction-Percentage value
>      of 10 would mean that from now on the reacting node MUST only send
>      90 packets per second.  How the reacting node achieves the "true
>      reduction" transactions leading to the sent request messages is up
>      to the implementation.  The reacting node MAY simply drop every
>      10th packet from its output queue and let the generic application
>      logic try to recover from it.0 < value < 100
> 
> Proposal:
> Indicates that the reporting node urges the reacting node to
> reduce its traffic by a given percentage. For example if the
> reacting node would send 100 packets to the				<---
> reporting node, then a reception of OC-Reduction-Percentage value
> of 10 would mean that from now on the reacting node MUST only send
> 90 packets per second. How the reacting node achieves the "true
> reduction" transactions leading to the sent request messages is up
> to the implementation. The reacting node MAY simply drop every
> 10th packet from its output queue and let the generic application
> logic try to recover from it.
> 
> 
> We should not specify a rates for the simple loss algorithm. It’s up to the implementation how to reduce, but no time unit has to be specified. 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dime issue tracker [mailto:trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org] 
> Sent: miércoles, 12 de febrero de 2014 9:13
> To: Maria Cruz Bartolome
> Cc: dime@ietf.org
> Subject: [dime] #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history
> 
> #52: Throttling not needed to be based on previous history
> 
> Now (chapter 4.7):
>    The OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP (AVP code TBD8) is type of Unsigned32
>    and describes the percentage of the traffic that the sender is
>    requested to reduce, compared to what it otherwise would have sent.
> 
> Proposal:
> The OC-Reduction-Percentage AVP (AVP code TBD8) is type of Unsigned32  and describes the percentage of the traffic that the sender is  requested to reduce, compared to what it otherwise would send.
> 
> 
> The intention is to avoid that anyone may interpret reacting node is  required to consider history of sent information when throttling.
> 
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------+------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------+---
> Reporter:  maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com  |      Owner:  MCruz
>     Type:  defect                             |  Bartolomé
> Priority:  major                              |     Status:  new
> Component:  draft-docdt-dime-ovli              |  Milestone:
> Severity:  Active WG Document                 |    Version:  1.0
>                                               |   Keywords:
> -----------------------------------------------+------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------+---
> 
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/52>
> dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime