Re: [Dime] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02.txt

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

WFM

On Dec 19, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Tom Taylor <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> Just a one-word change.
> 
> On 19/12/2012 1:30 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>> 
>> I think that's on the right track. We've been too focused on
>> specification impact, when the root of the requirement is really a
>> combination of application-independent default behavior, along with
>> extensibility to allow application-specific behavior.
>> 
>> To put some finer points on it, how's this? I tried to take the
>> spirit of your proposed text, and added some non-normative
>> elaboration:
>> 
>> 
>> The mechanism MUST allow Diameter nodes to support default overload
>> control regardless of which Diameter applications they support. It
>> MUST provide sufficient extensibility to allow individual
>> applications to provide more refined overload control.
>> 
>> The basic mechanism is intended to be application-independent, that
>> is, a Diameter node can use it across any existing and future
>> Diameter applications and expect reasonable results. Certain Diameter
>> applications might, however, benefit from application-specific
>> behavior over and above the mechanism's defaults. For example, an
>> application         might specify relative priorities of
>              ^^^^^^^^
>> messages or selection of a specific overload control algorithm.
>>