Re: [sip-overload] Local Policy Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-05.txt

[Salvatore Loreto <[e-mail]>]

while I am OK with the
"/A SIP client is expected generally to //
//honor local policy except for very rare occasions when, for example, //
//overload is so severe that messages, which should be preserved 
according //
//to local policy, need to be discarded/"

I don t like the last "/or local policies are in conflict/."
as it can generate confusion
i.e. what to do when local policies are in conflict, what policy then 
apply etc.

/Sal




On 1/14/13 5:02 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> I think the text Volker proposed below works, although it appears that
> the explanatory sentence Volker added is applicable to only the first
> paragraph.  I think that the sentence is equally applicable to all the
> three SHOULDs.
>
> I would, thus, suggest a small modification as detailed below.
>
> On 01/14/2013 08:21 AM, Volker Hilt wrote:
>> A SIP client SHOULD honor the local policy for prioritizing SIP requests
>> such as policies based on message type, e.g., INVITEs vs. requests
>> associated with existing sessions. A SIP client is expected generally to
>> honor local policy except for very rare occasions when, for example,
>> overload is so severe that messages, which should be preserved according
>> to local policy, need to be discarded or local policies are in conflict.
>>
>> A SIP client SHOULD honor the local policy for prioritizing SIP requests
>> based on the content of the Resource-Priority header (RPH, RFC4412
>> [RFC4412]).  Specific (namespace.value) RPH contents may indicate high
>> priority requests that should be preserved as much as possible during
>> overload.  The RPH contents can also indicate a low-priority request
>> that is eligible to be dropped during times of overload.
>>
>> A SIP client SHOULD honor the local policy for prioritizing SIP requests
>> relating to emergency calls, as identified by the SOS URN [RFC5031]
>> indicating an emergency request.
>
> I would re-word as:
>
>    A SIP client is generally expected to honor local policy for
>    prioritizing SIP requests except for very rare occasions, when,
>    for example, overload is so severe that messages that would
>    otherwise be preserved according to local policy need to be
>    now discarded.  Another example where local policies may not be
>    honored is if these are in conflict.  Accordingly, the normative
>    statements in the next three paragraphs should be interpreted in
>    the context provided here and with the understanding that the SIP
>    client will aim to preserve local policy to the fullest extent
>    possible.
>
>    A SIP client SHOULD honor the local policy for prioritizing SIP
>    requests such as policies based on message type, e.g., INVITEs vs.
>    requests associated with existing sessions.
>
>    A SIP client SHOULD honor the local policy for prioritizing SIP
>    requests based on the content of the Resource-Priority header (RPH,
>    RFC4412 [RFC4412]).  Specific (namespace.value) RPH contents may
>    indicate high priority requests that should be preserved as much as
>    possible during overload.  The RPH contents can also indicate a
>    low-priority request that is eligible to be dropped during times of
>    overload.
>
>    A SIP client SHOULD honor the local policy for prioritizing SIP
>    requests relating to emergency calls, as identified by the SOS URN
>    [RFC5031] indicating an emergency request.
>
> Unless someone has objections, I will put this into the
> soc-overload-control draft, and I suspect that Charles will do the same
> for his draft.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay