Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sipping-overload-reqs (Requirements for Management of Overload in the Session Initiation Protocol) to Informational RFC

Your rewording looks good.  One minor suggestion for REQ 15:

<t hangText="REQ 15:"> In cases where a network element fails, is so 
overloaded that it cannot process messages, or cannot communicate due to a 
network failure or network partition, it will not be able to provide explicit 
indications of the nature of the failure or its levels of congestion. The 
mechanism must properly function in these cases. </t>

>> I would like to point out that TCP, IP and several other transport 
>> protocols have evolved in the same direction as I am advocating for SIP: 
>> the only robust indication that an error has occurred is connection 
>> failure. 
>
> True, and we absolutely need to utilize that. However, I do not believe this 
> eliminates the utility of explicit congestion indicators, as ECN provides 
> (for example), as a way to further improve performance.

Normally ECN only reduces latency.  My usual metric for performance is 
throughput, which is not generally improved by ECN.  But point taken.   And it
doesn't effect the document.

Thanks,
--MM--
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf