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

[Eric McMurry <[e-mail]>]

okay Benoit.  I'll do that this morning.

Thanks,

Eric


On Sep 10, 2013, at 1:10 , Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>