Re: [MEDIACTRL] MRB Publish interface suggestion

Chris Boulton <chris@ns-technologies.com> Thu, 19 May 2011 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <chris@ns-technologies.com>
X-Original-To: mediactrl@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mediactrl@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2614E06A2 for <mediactrl@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2011 07:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z8FctO4wNXiT for <mediactrl@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2011 07:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host.qbytedns.net (host.qbytedns.net [89.16.176.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B38E7E066A for <mediactrl@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2011 07:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.171.3.120] (port=50886 helo=[192.168.2.5]) by host.qbytedns.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <chris@ns-technologies.com>) id 1QN3yJ-0008KK-VR for mediactrl@ietf.org; Thu, 19 May 2011 15:13:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4DD52562.9020100@ns-technologies.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:12:50 +0100
From: Chris Boulton <chris@ns-technologies.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mediactrl@ietf.org
References: <2F41EF28ED42A5489E41742244C9117C03CD9A8B@gaalpa1msgusr7b.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <2F41EF28ED42A5489E41742244C9117C03CD9A8B@gaalpa1msgusr7b.ugd.att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080704000301020502020907"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.qbytedns.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ns-technologies.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] MRB Publish interface suggestion
X-BeenThere: mediactrl@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media Control WG Discussion List <mediactrl.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mediactrl>
List-Post: <mailto:mediactrl@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl>, <mailto:mediactrl-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 14:13:08 -0000

Gary - this seems reasonable to me.  Unless anyone objects I will look 
at weaving into the text and submit a new version (which will also 
include some final edits).  Any thoughts?  Shout.

On 13/04/2011 11:33, MUNSON, GARY A (ATTSI) wrote:
> Thanks for posting mrb-08.
>
> I have one modification to suggest for the Publish interface.
>
> Currently the Publish subscription element has a 'frequency' child
> element that says how often the MRB wants to receive notifications from
> an MS on status of its resources.
>
> I find myself wondering whether a notification interval range min and
> max might be more useful than frequency. I.e., so that the MRB would
> tell the MS that the interval duration from the last notification to the
> next notification should be no more than X seconds and no less than Y
> seconds.
>
> That way the MS could optionally be allowed to decide, within
> constraints, how often to send notifications to MRB. So, for example,
> when things are working normally the MS might send updates every 30
> minutes, but if all of a sudden its real time consumption gets clobbered
> because of some system emergency audit running and the effective number
> of idle ports is seriously diminished, it can send a next event
> notification much sooner.
>
> Specifying max/min values instead of a single frequency adds a tiny bit
> of complexity to the Publish interface but could have a significant
> benefit. And one could still specify a single frequency by setting min
> and max to the same value.
>
> BR,
>
> Gary
>
> Gary Munson
> AT&T
> _______________________________________________
> MEDIACTRL mailing list
> MEDIACTRL@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
> Supplemental Web Site:
> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl
>

-- 
Chris Boulton
CTO & Co-founder
NS-Technologies <http://www.ns-technologies.com>
m: +44.7876.476681