Re: [Dime] Ongoing Throttling Information in request messages

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 27, 2013, at 5:21 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ben,
> 
> thank you for not objecting to marking requests that survived a throttling.

To be clear, by "not objecting" I mean that I think it might be a worthwhile extension to pursue, but I'm not convinced it needs to go in the base spec.

> From here it is only a small step to additionally indicate which type of throttling (10% or 80% or.... identified by timestamp) the request survived.

I'm not sure what the purpose of that would be.

> 
> Open issue is to assess whether
> 
> a) executing some logic (timestamp check) always + sending OLR only in the very few cases where it is needed
> is more expensive (in terms or resource consumption contributing to overload) than
> b) sending OLR always

Agreed, but with the caveat that we still have c) reporting node resends when it wants to.

> 
> One approach could be to 
> - mandate sending of Ongoing-Throttling-Information(TimeStamp) in request messages by acting nodes while performing throttling
> - reporting nodes that are in overload may either do a) or b) whatever is regarded less resource consuming by the implementation
> - reporting nodes that are not (no longer) overloaded must do a)

Why the last point? I'd leave it as a MAY for both cases.