IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Atoca] Requirement D2: "Large Audience"

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 18 January 2011 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5C73A6FBB for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:50:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.63
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.381, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R5AEMkMFlsW9 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133A53A6FAD for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:50:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p0ICqh0W007198 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:52:43 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:52:43 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "earlywarning@ietf.org" <earlywarning@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:52:42 +0100
Thread-Topic: [Atoca] Requirement D2: "Large Audience"
Thread-Index: Acu1kSZx02LQzsaJR2maLToInGbJVQAPvVXAAE+ImNA=
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21E6AE3A1@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <AC859123-98E0-4188-8898-0CBBDA567FBC@gmx.net> <A7EF592C-E85F-4FD1-9F69-C59327D735AC@gmail.com> <1285F7FB-FFBE-4B49-87F8-FCDCDF1F1AD3@gmx.net> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F52595D3@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F52595D3@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.84
Subject: Re: [Atoca] Requirement D2: "Large Audience"
X-BeenThere: earlywarning@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." <earlywarning.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>, <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning>
List-Post: <mailto:earlywarning@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>, <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:50:15 -0000

Surely if you supress the responses then it is no longer SIP, but some other entirely new protocol.


regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:earlywarning-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomson, Martin
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:15 PM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig; Art Botterell
> Cc: Faynberg, Igor (Igor); earlywarning@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Atoca] Requirement D2: "Large Audience"
> 
> On Jan 15, 2011, at 11:58 PM, Art Botterell wrote:
> > One difference in "broadcast" delivery is that it's frequntly 
> > impractical and/or undesirable to try to track individual 
> deliveries 
> > or process individual responses.
> 
> If SIP is our delivery mechanism, can anything be done to 
> suppress 200 responses to NOTIFY requests?  Is there any 
> point if we're using acknowledged transport like TCP?  Is 
> there a concern that unacknowledged packets (UDP) will get dropped?
> 
> The potential to create congestion worries me.
> 
> --Martin
> _______________________________________________
> earlywarning mailing list
> earlywarning@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email