Re: [sip-overload] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-10.txt

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Charles,

No, this is not a strong comment. Actually all my comments were listed as ‘minor’ thus non-blocking vs. a document I appreciate as of good quality. Thank you for the dialog and for considering my comments.

Regards,

Dan





From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Charles Shen
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 11:06 AM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-10.txt

Hi Dan,

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Also, in the same list of requirements I miss an explicit requirement on persistency.


This part I am not sure if I understand clearly, could you please elaborate a bit?

 [[DR]] In section 5.3, second paragraph there are a couple of references to the persistency of subscriptions of neighboring SIP entities and periodic refresh. Should not this be mentioned explicitly in the list in Section 4?

I see what you mean. In fact I tend to think of this as one of those micro-aspects that have been covered by existing macro-clauses. Specifically, as Section 5.3 says:


 Key to this is the fact that following initial

   subscription, the notifier sends a notification without a body if no

   load filtering policy is defined (Section 6.7<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-11#section-6.7>), and that the

   subscription needs to be refreshed periodically to make it

   persistent, as described in Section 4.1<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-11#section-4.1> and Section 4.2 of [RFC6665]<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6665#section-4.2>.

The behavior of notifier sending a notification following initial subscription is mandated in Section 6.7 of this document. And the behavior of periodic refresh is specified in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 of RFC 6665.

Both this document and RFC 6665 have already been explicitly listed in Section 4 of this document. So they seem to have covered the persistency issue.

That said, I am open to add another explicit clause for this aspect if you really feel strongly about it. Please let me know. Thanks again!

Charles