Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-11

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Actually, it might be better to quickly publish a new version (as 
opposed to me writing down a RFC editor note), because the IESG is still 
busy reading the document for this Thursday telechat.

Regards, Benoit
> I would note down the change but implement/submit a revision after we get
> the rest of the IESG comments (the doc is in next week's telechat). That's
> because ADs (and others) are now reading the -11.
>
> - Jouni
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2013, at 6:24 AM, Eric McMurry <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> that matches what I came away with.  How would you like us to address that?
>>
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2013, at 22:22 , Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> So if I got it right, the last sentence of the Req13 will be removed and
>>> the Req31 stays as it is now.
>>>
>>> This would be fine with me.
>>>
>>> - JOuni
>>>
>>> On Sep 10, 2013, at 4:27 AM, Carl Wallace <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The intent was that the overload condition has granularity. That is, the
>>>>> overloaded node indicates an overload condition with some granularity,
>>>>> and later ends it. The act of ending doesn't change the granularity. We
>>>>> don't have an explicit requirement to be able to change the granularity
>>>>> of an existing condition. (Although we do not prevent a solution from
>>>>> offering that ability--but I suspect if the solution did that, it would
>>>>> involve multiple concurrent overload conditions, or ending one condition
>>>>> and starting another.)
>>>> Got it.  Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>