Re: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01 submitted

Antoine Roly <antoine.roly@gmail.com> Tue, 25 January 2011 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <antoine.roly@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sip-overload@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-overload@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E793A6964 for <sip-overload@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:05:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NPAKTF41QDcq for <sip-overload@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A12B3A6A7C for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so5379096wyf.31 for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:08:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8TpWfw8u8j/s0q1cFuI4cm/eNFiqB8kI81V3CdUypYw=; b=AyksRBYWPcjXc2Os2uXgBsvJ2/7cJOfJ9KXTkyNKrqPCRVUNXIXE+Z0XBY34SRZwrv i4KpHeBZhkPljbQjMpiJbZcInurSCQGK9Bl4/RbiMzoQBDiWloicqJ/CJebJPhDIe7hz 2tx+707xhuGSfxDwfeFkbTnVGrBEvyANc2azw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=R1otym5mVW1cxnKPmmjGgBAnvVkcrRxkYSZNmTt9I3M/bXjEdD1jj4uv95rFYcuuss Zwocf1xXyxgUyxmBVMKZHtRKorpUY9bpjlMNJ9K8vCgcmbC4MkUGB9TW2WEV405AwvxB uAJ1swxQxdIjMdc3m7FyGIS9Hoqstk6DFy5Ho=
Received: by 10.216.72.201 with SMTP id t51mr3429958wed.6.1295942912748; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:08:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [138.48.32.233] (phoos.info.fundp.ac.be [138.48.32.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a50sm5486790wer.42.2011.01.25.00.08.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:08:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D3E84FE.2020407@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:08:30 +0100
From: Antoine Roly <antoine.roly@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101227 Lightning/1.0b1 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sip-overload@ietf.org
References: <4D3876BF.9050009@bell-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D3876BF.9050009@bell-labs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01 submitted
X-BeenThere: sip-overload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Overload <sip-overload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload>, <mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload>
List-Post: <mailto:sip-overload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload>, <mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:05:37 -0000

Hi,

There are some small differences between the example in section 3 and 
the syntax definition in section 14. It could be a good thing to correct 
them for readability.

- In section 14, it is:
oc-validity = "oc_validity" [EQUAL delta-ms]
but in section 3, in the response
...;oc-validity=500;...

Which one is correct? With "-" or "_" ?

- In section 14 it is:
oc-seq = (1*12DIGIT "." 1*5DIGIT)
but in the example it is
;oc-seq=1282321615.781;...

IIUC the definition and the example does not match.
I think it should be something like :
oc-seq = "oc-seq" EQUAL 1*12DIGIT "." 1*5DIGIT

Antoine

On 20/01/11 18:54, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> Folks: Pursuant to our virtual meeting in December-1-2010 [1],
> an update to draft-ietf-soc-overload-control has been submitted
> [2].
>
> There are some substantive changes that have been discussed on
> the mailing list. These are:
>
> 1) The need to support algorithm agility (i.e., negotiate different
> overload control algorithms). This discussion resulted in the
> addition of the "oc-algo" parameter and is discussed in Sections 4.2
> and 5 of the -01 draft. [2]
>
> 2) The caveats of sending overload control parameters in a 100-
> Trying. This discussion is captured in Section 12 of [2].
>
> 3) The relationship of SIP overload control mechanism with other
> overload control mechanisms. This discussion is captured in
> Section 13.
>
> 4) A new appendix (Appendix B) has been added that tracks the
> requirements of RFC5390 and how they apply to this draft.
>
> 5) Miscellaneous changes to aid in readability.
>
> The diff between -00 and -01 is available in [3].
>
> Please take a look at the new revision and provide comments on
> the mailing list.
>
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00498.html
> [2]
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01.txt
> [3]
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-00.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01.txt
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> - vijay